Case Number: BC526201    Hearing Date: August 22, 2014    Dept: 93

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles

Department 93

SUZANNE E. RAND-LEWIS, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),
v.

ELEANORA A. BELDEAN, et al.,

Defendant(s).
Case No.: BC526201

Hearing Date: August 22, 2014

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:
PLAINTIFFS SUZANNE E. RAND-LEWIS AND TIMOTHY D. RAND-LEWIS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE; REQUESTS FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; AND MOTIONS FOR AN ORDER DEEMING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, ADMITTED BY DEFENDANT; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Plaintiffs Suzanne E. Rand-Lewis and Timothy D. Rand-Lewis’ Motions to Compel Responses Without Objection to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production of Documents, Set One are GRANTED. Defendant Eleanora A. Beldean is ordered to serve supplemental responses within 10 days of notice of this order, to the extent that any requests have not been fully answered or where any objections have been made. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ Motions for an Order Deeming Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted by Defendant are GRANTED , and the matters set forth in Requests for Admission 4 through 8 and 14 are deemed admitted. In addition, Defendant and defense counsel are ordered to pay to Plaintiffs sanctions in the total amount of $2,870.00 within 10 days of service of notice of this order.

Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents

Plaintiffs served form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents on Defendant on January 31, 2014 by mail. (Motions, Rand Decl. (“Rand Decl.”) ¶¶3-4 and Exh. A.) Responses were due within 30 days, plus five days for service by mail. (CCP §§, 2030.260(a) and 1013(a).) No responses were timely provided on May 7, 2014. (Rand Decl. ¶¶5.) No response was provided to multiple meet and confer letters sent by Plaintiffs’ counsel to defense counsel. (Rand Decl. ¶¶7-13 and Exhs. B-C.) As of the filing date of the instant motions, no responses have been served. (Rand Decl. ¶14.) In their Oppositions, Defendants acknowledge that the responses were filed late, but state that the responses were served on Defendants’ counsel on July 28, 2014. (Declarations of Ronald Zurek in support of Oppositions to Motions (“Zurek Decl.” ¶3; Proofs of Service attached to discovery attached to Zurek Decl.) While Defendants do not provide any excuse for filing late responses, or failing to respond to the multiple meet and confer letters, there does not appear to be a dispute that responses were ultimately filed, albeit two months after the filing of the Motions to Compel.
Given that Defendants failed to respond to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production, Plaintiffs are entitled to an order compelling responses to the discovery without objection. (CCP §§, 2030.290 and 2031.300.) Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, service of untimely discovery responses does not make a motion compelling those responses moot. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408.)

However, Defendants assert that the interrogatories have been “fully answered,” and that they have “been answered without objection.” (Zurek Decl. 3.) Similarly, Defendants assert that the Demand for Production of Documents was “completed without objection.” (Zurek Decl. 2.) The Court has reviewed the responses attached to Defendants’ Oppositions, and it appears that no objections are made to the Interrogatories or to the Demands for Production of Documents. While this issue is not addressed in the Motion (because the responses had not yet been provided), the Replies instead focus on the issue of sanctions. Unless Defendants can identify objections asserted, no additional responses are required.

Plaintiffs are also entitled to an award of sanctions based on Defendant’s failure to timely respond to the above discovery. (CCP §§ 2023.030(a) and 2023.010(d).) However, Defendant is correct that the sanctions sought are excessive given the simplicity of these motions and the fact that the motions, Oppositions, and Replies are virtually identical. In addition, counsel will only need to make one trip to the Court for the hearing on all motions. Therefore, an award of $2,050 in sanctions against Defendant and her attorneys for all five motions is appropriate (five hours of attorney time billed at $350.00, plus $300.00 in filing fees). (Rand Decl. ¶15.)

Requests for Admission

Plaintiffs served requests for admission (“RFAs”) on Defendant on January 31, 2014 by mail. (Motions, Rand Decl. (“Rand Decl.”) ¶¶3-4 and Exh. A.) Responses were due within 30 days, plus five days for service by mail. (CCP §§, 2030.260(a) and 1013(a).) No responses were timely provided on May 7, 2014. (Rand Decl. ¶¶5.) No response was provided to multiple meet and confer letters sent by Plaintiffs’ counsel to defense counsel, although it appears that these letters inadvertently referenced the interrogatories and demands for production, not the RFAs. (Rand Decl. ¶¶7-13 and Exhs. B-C.) As of the filing date of the instant motions, no responses had been served to the RFAs. (Rand Decl. ¶14.)

In his declaration, attorney Ronald Zurek states that while he did receive the written discovery from Plaintiffs, he did not receive any requests for admission. (Zurek Decl. ¶3.) However, according to Plaintiffs’ Reply briefs and the Proofs of Service attached to the discovery, all discovery was served at the same time on January 31, 2014 by mail. It is hard to understand how some of the discovery would have been received but other discovery was not. In any event, even after filing and serving the Motions on May 28, 2014, it took two months for Defendant to serve responses to the requests for admission, which were served on July 28, 2014. (Opp., Zurek Decl. ¶¶6; Proofs of Service.) Notably, even if Defendant had seen the RFAs for the first time with the filing of the motions, the responses were still served later than the 30 day deadlines for responding to RFAs.

Moreover, the responses are not in substantial compliance with CCP Section 2033.220. While Ronald Zurek states in his declaration that the Requests for Admission “have all been fully answered without objection” (Zurek Decl. ¶4), that is not accurate as to all of the responses. For RFAs 4 through 8, Defendant states that she “cannot admit or deny.” Where a party does not have sufficient information to admit or deny, Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.220(b) provides that the party must: “(3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to
the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge; [and]
(c) … state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is
insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” Defendant has failed to do so.

In addition, as to RFA 14, which requests Defendant to “[a]dmit that you were still under the influence of medication at the time of the accident,” Defendant only responds as to each RFA: “Defendant cannot admit or deny because this request is vague, ambiguous and overbroad.”

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ request to have the matters set forth in RFAs 4 through 8 and 14 deemed admitted. (CCP §, 2033.280(b).) Given the complete answers to the other RFAs, they will not be deemed admitted.

Furthermore, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of sanctions (CCP §, 2033.280(c).) Sanctions against Defendant and her attorneys in the amount of $820.00 are appropriate (two hours of attorney time at $350.00 per hour, and filing fees of $120.00). (Rand Decl. ¶15.)

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.

DATED: August 22, 2014
_________________________
Hon. Gail Ruderman Feuer
Judge of the Superior Court