Case Number: BC659605 Hearing Date: June 18, 2019 Dept: 73

DEFENDANT’S FOUR MOTIONS TO COMPEL INITIAL RESPONSES FROM PLAINTIFFS SABRINA MEDINA AND ABELINO MARROQUIN; REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS

MP: Defendant 718 LAR LLLC

RP: Plaintiffs Sabrina Medina and Abelino Marroquin

TENTATIVE RULING

For the reasons discussed below, the Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearings on the instant motions, and to order that the parties meet and confer to prepare a joint statement as to the status of responses by Plaintiffs Sabrina Medina and Abelino Marroquin to Defendants’ first set of form and special interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for production of documents.

Summary of Case

Since February 5, 2013, Defendant 718 LAR LLC has owned the apartment building located at 718 S. Rampart Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90057. Plaintiffs now or have been tenants in the apartment building—units 302 and 309. The apartment building was constructed before 1978 and is subject to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

Alba Ramirez

An individual

William Zamora

An individual

Cristobal Gonzalez

An individual

Eduardo Rosa

Minors by and through their guardian ad litem Alba Ramirez

Same

Hector Rosa

Elizabeth Medina

An individual

Abelino Marroquin

An individual

Sabrina Medina

An individual

Ignacio Alejandro Cuadras

An individual

Brian Esparza

An individual

Clementa Marroquin

Minors by and through their guardian ad litem Elizabeth Medina

Damaris Marroquin

Sela Marroquin

Andres Fix Medina

On April 28, 2017, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Defendant for:

C/A 1: Breach of Implied Warrant of Habitability

C/A 2: Breach of Statutory Warranty of Habitability

C/A 3: Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

C/A 4: Negligence

C/A 5: Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4

On April 17, 2019, Defendant filed these discovery motions pertaining to Plaintiff Sabrina Medina.

On April 29, 2019, Defendant filed these discovery motions pertaining to Plaintiff Abelino Marroquin.

On June 7, 2019, Defendant filed notices of non-opposition.

On June 13, 2019, Plaintiff Medina filed oppositions.

On June 14, 2019, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed declarations stating that the oppositions were inadvertently not timely filed due to misunderstanding between counsel and his legal staff. (See Jason B. Friedman Decl., ¶¶ 2-8.)

Summary of Issues

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff Sabrina Medina and Plaintiff Abelino Marroquin’s initial responses to Defendant’s first set of form and special interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production of documents.

Medina

On February 27, 2019, Defendant served Medina with discovery, with timely responses due by April 3, 2019. Defense counsel granted an extension to April 5, 2019. Defendant claims no response were received. In each motion, Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff Medina:

Frogs – $1,593

Deem RFAs Admitted – $1,803

RFPs – $1,667

Srogs – $1,719

Marroquin

On March 19, 2019, Defendant served Marroquin with the written discovery, with timely responses due by April 22, 2019. Defendant claims no responses were received. In each motion, Defendant requests sanctions:

Frogs – $1,593

Srogs – $1,719

RFPS – $1,677

Deem RFAs Admitted – $1,383

ANALYSIS

Oppositions

On June 13, 2019, Plaintiff Medina filed untimely oppositions. Plaintiff Marroquin has not filed any oppositions. Instead, on June 14, 2019, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed declarations stating that oppositions were mistakenly not filed on time.

Medina’s late oppositions are overlooked. (See Samaniego v. Empire Today LLC (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1146; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d) [judges have discretion to consider late filed papers, and minutes or orders must indicate such decisions].)

Notice Issues

Generally, courts may only consider issues or grounds specified in the notice of motion or supporting papers incorporated by reference in the notice. (See, e.g., Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1125; Geary St., L.P. v. Sup. Ct. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1186, 1199-1200.) “A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(a); Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.) Here, none of Defendant’s notices state the statute or statutes on which it relies to move to compel responses or for sanctions.

All Motions Maybe Moot

A trial court may intervene when a party fails to serve a timely response to request for admissions, interrogatories, or inspection demands. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.280 [admissions], 2030.290 [interrogatories], 2031.300 [inspection demands].) A party that fails to serve a timely response to the discovery request waives any objection to the request, including one based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Id., §§ 2033.280(a), 2030.290(a), 2031.300 (a).) The propounding party can move the trial court for an order compelling a party to respond to the discovery request. (Id., §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b).) The propounding party can also move the trial court for an order deeming requests for admission as admitted. (Id., § 2033.280(b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance and the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Id., §§ 2030.290(a); 2031.300(a); 2033.280(a).)

There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses unless a propounding party’s delay in bringing a motion to compel responses has resulted in substantial prejudice to the responding party. (Crippen v. Superior Court (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 254, 260.) There is no requirement to “meet and confer” on a motion to compel responses, nor is there a requirement to show good cause to compel responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290; 2031.300; 2033.280.) All that needs to be shown is that the discovery was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.

Plaintiff Medina purports to have provided Defendant with responses. And it is unclear whether Plaintiff Marroquin has served Defendant with responses. Because Defendant has not filed any late replies, the Court is inclined to CONTINUE THE HEARINGS on these motions. Unless this matter can be resolved and taken off calendar on its own, the parties are ordered to meet and confer and prepare a joint statement as to the status of Plaintiffs Sabrina Medina and Abelino Marroquin discovery responses to Defendants’ first set of form and special interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production of documents.

Sanctions

In each motion, Defendant requests sanctions be imposed against the Plaintiff.

Monetary sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories or a response to a demand for inspection unless the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.290(c), 2031.300(c).) Further, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction [] on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Id., § 2033.280.) “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)

Here, Defendant’s notices of motion do not cite any statute to support the type of discovery relief sought. Moreover, the declarations accompanying the motions do not set forth sufficient facts to justify the full amount of sanctions sought, because the declarations include time estimates for tasks that have not occurred, such as the drafting of reply briefs. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to DENY the requests for monetary sanctions.