Case Number: BC643168 Hearing Date: April 26, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Defendant LA County MTA

RESPONDING PARTY: None

(1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

(2) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two

(3) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Three

(4) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

(5) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two

(6) Motion for an Order that the Truth of All Matters Specified in Requests for Admissions, Set One Be Deemed Admitted

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

On December 6, 2016, plaintiff Tracie Jones filed a complaint against defendants Los Angeles County MTA and Esayas Geletu for motor vehicle negligence based on incidents that occurred on February 4, 2016 and May 21, 2016, when she was a passenger on the bus.

On November 17, 2017, the court granted plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.

On November 29, 2017, plaintiff’s counsel filed the proof of service of the order to be relieved as counsel.

Trial is set for June 7, 2018.

LEGAL STANDARD

Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. CCP § 2030.290(b). The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.

Request for Production of Documents

Where there has been no timely response to a CCP § 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. CCP § 2031.300. Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, ¶ 8:1487.

Request for Admissions

Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(b), a party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). “Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions. Rather, the propounder of the RFA must ‘move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction’ under § 2023.010 et seq.” Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶ 8:1370, citing CCP § 2033.280(b). The court “shall” grant the motion to deem RFA admitted, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” CCP § 2033.280(c).

DISCUSSION

Defendant LA County MTA requests that the court compel plaintiff to serve responses to its form interrogatories, sets one, two, and three, and requests for production of documents, sets one and two, and to deem admitted the matters in the requests for admissions.

Defendant served its first and second sets of discovery on August 23, 2017. Responses were due by September 27, 2017. On October 2, 2017, defense counsel sent plaintiff’s counsel a letter requesting the outstanding responses by October 16, 2017.

Defendant served its third set of discovery on August 30, 2017. Responses were due by October 4, 2017.

On October 4, 2017, plaintiff’s counsel requested a two-week extension, which was granted. After plaintiff’s counsel was relieved, defense counsel left messages with plaintiff on December 12, 2017, January 18, 2018, and February 6, 2018. Through email, plaintiff asked

counsel to re-send the discovery requests, which defense counsel did. Defense counsel requested responses by March 2, 2018. To date, defense counsel has not received responses.

Because defendant properly served its discovery requests and plaintiff failed to serve response, the motions are GRANTED.

Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP §§ 2030.290(c); 2031.300(c).

It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated a motion to deem them admitted. CCP § 2033.280(c).

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) states, “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

Defendant requests sanctions against plaintiff in the amount of $540 for each motion. The court finds that $810 ($180/hr. x 2.5 hrs. plus $360 in filing fees) is a reasonable amount to be imposed against plaintiff for all six motions.

The court ORDERS:

Plaintiff is ordered to serve on defendant verified responses without objections to defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Sets One, Two, and Three, within 20 days.

Plaintiff is ordered (1) to serve on defendant a verified response without objections to defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Sets One and Two, and (2) to produce all documents and things in her possession, custody, or control, which are responsive to defendant’s requests, within 20 days.

The court deems admitted the matters in defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One.

The court orders that plaintiff is to pay to defendant a monetary sanction in the amount of $810 within 30 days.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 26, 2018

_____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court