Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records plaintiff is represented by attorney Hamed Yazdanpanah. Update: It is Lawzilla’s belief the case settled and the tentative ruling below did not become a final ruling. No final sanctions order was made.

Case Number: BC643539 Hearing Date: May 07, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ralphs Grocery Co.

RESPONDING PARTY: None

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

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

(3) Motion to Have Requests for Admissions Deemed Admitted

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

On December 22, 2016, plaintiff Victor Green filed a complaint against defendants Manny Gutierrez, M703 Kroger West, Ralphs, Ralphs Store #120, The Kroger Company, Kroger Limited Partnership, and Ralphs Grocery Company for premises liability based on a slip and fall that occurred on December 22, 2014.

On May 16, 2017, the court granted defendant Ralphs’ motions to compel discovery responses to its initial sets of interrogatories and requests for production of documents.

Trial is set for June 22, 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 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 Ralphs requests that the court compel plaintiff to serve responses to defendant’s second sets of form interrogatories and special interrogatories, and to deem admitted the matters in the requests for admission.

Defendant served the discovery requests on February 2, 2018. On March 14, 2018, defense counsel sent a letter to plaintiff’s counsel, requesting the overdue responses by March 20, 2018. To date, defense counsel has not received responses.

Because defendant properly served its discovery requests and plaintiff failed to serve responses, 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 and his attorney of record, Hamed Yazdanpanah, in the amount of $960 for each motion. The court finds that $540 ($180/hr. x 2 hrs. plus $180 in filing fees) is a reasonable amount to be imposed against plaintiff and his attorney of record for all three motions.

The court ORDERS:

Plaintiff Victor Green is ordered to serve on defendant Ralphs verified responses without objections to defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two and Special Interrogatories, Set Two, within 20 days.

The court deems admitted the matters in defendant’s Requests for Admission.

The court orders that plaintiff and his and his attorney of record, Hamed Yazdanpanah, are to pay to defendant Ralphs a monetary sanction in the amount of $540 within 30 days.

Moving defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED