Case Number: BC530166 Hearing Date: February 13, 2015 Dept: 93
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE
DEPARTMENT 93

ENRIQUE JOYA REYES,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., et al.,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC530166

Hearing Date: February 13, 2015

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
MOTIONS OF PLAINTIFF, ENRIQUE JOYA REYES, TO: (1) DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; (2) COMPEL RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; (3) COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; AND (4) COMPEL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

The Motions of plaintiff, ENRIQUE JOYA REYES, to: (1) DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; (2) COMPEL RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; (3) COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; and (4) COMPEL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; are GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission are deemed admitted. Miguel Angel Moreno; National Carriers, Inc.; and National Beef Packing Company (collectively “Defendants”) are ordered to respond to the Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents, without objection, within 15 days. Defendants and Defense Counsel are also ordered, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through Counsel, in the amount of $1,120 within 15 days.

Department 93 will not be in session for the 1:30 PM law and motion calendar on February 13, 2015. Please use Court Call to notify the judicial assistant in Department 93, at 1:30 PM on February 13, 2015, whether you are submitting on the tentative ruling or wish to be heard. If either party would like to be heard, the judicial assistant will provide you with the date on which you may be heard.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of a car accident that occurred on December 29, 2011. Enrique Joya Reyes (“Plaintiff”) alleges Miguel Angel Moreno (“Moreno”) negligently operated a vehicle owned by National Carriers, Inc. (“National Carriers”) and National Beef Packing Company (“National Beef”). On December 10, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting causes of action for Motor Vehicle and General Negligence against Moreno, National Carriers, and National Beef (collectively “Defendants”).

Plaintiff served the instant motions on October 28, 2014 and filed them on October 29, 2014. An opposition was filed a day late, on February 2, 2015. The Court declines to exercise its discretion under CRC Rule 3.1300 to refuse to consider late filed papers. Plaintiff filed a reply on February 6, 2015.

DISCUSSION

A. MOTIONS TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED AND TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

According to the declaration of Shari S. Daneshrad, on February 13, 2014, Plaintiff served on Defendants Requests for Admission, Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents. Responses were due by March 20, 2014.

On April 22, 2014, Defense Counsel requested an extension to April 30, 2014 to respond to discovery. Plaintiff’s Counsel granted the request. On April 29, 2014, Defense Counsel requested another extension. Accordingly, the deadline was extended to May 9, 2014.

On June 12, 2014, the office of Plaintiff’s Counsel faxed a meet and confer letter to Defense Counsel, requesting discovery responses, without objections, within ten days. The letter also informed Defense Counsel that a motion to compel would be filed if responses were not timely received. In an effort to avoid court intervention, on August 5, 2014, the office of Plaintiff’s Counsel contacted Defense Counsel regarding the outstanding discovery responses. During the conversation, Defense Counsel stated that he would respond to discovery as soon as possible. At that time, Plaintiff’s Counsel extended the deadline to August 18, 2014.

Almost two months later, on October 8, 2014, the office of Plaintiff’s Counsel again contacted Defense Counsel regarding the overdue discovery responses. Defense Counsel acknowledged that the responses were overdue, and Plaintiff’s Counsel extended the deadline to respond to October 17, 2014. As of the date of the filing of these motions, responses have not been received.

In opposition, Defendants contend the instant motions should be denied because the parties failed to participate in an informal discovery conference (“IDC”). While acknowledging that an IDC is only required when filing a motion to compel further responses, Defendants argue this rule should apply to motions to compel and motions to deem admitted as well. Defendants also assert discovery responses will be provided by February 6, 2015, thus rendering these motions moot.

In Plaintiff’s reply, however, Plaintiff asserts correctly that an IDC is not required before bringing a motion to compel. Plaintiff also states that Defendants failed to provide discovery responses as of February 6, 2015, the date Plaintiff filed his reply papers.

Accordingly, Defendants should be compelled to respond to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents, without objection. CCP §§2030.290(a), 2031.300(b). Plaintiff is also entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted. CCP §§2033.280(b),(c).

B. SANCTIONS

Plaintiff requests sanctions on these discovery motions. Sanctions are mandatory in connection with the Motion to Deem Matters Admitted. CCP §2023.010(d). Sanctions are also mandatory in connection with the motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents 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).

Although Defendants filed an opposition, the only justification they provide for their failure to respond to discovery requests is that they will be serving responses on February 6, 2015. According to Plaintiff’s reply papers, however, Defendants failed to do so. Even if Defendants had provided responses by February 6, 2015, this fact alone would not have persuaded the Court that Defendants “acted with substantial justification” or that other circumstances counsel against awarding sanctions against them. Thus, sanctions against Defendants are warranted.

In Plaintiff’s notice of motion, he seeks monetary sanctions of $2,520 against Defendants and Defense Counsel. The declaration of counsel indicates that the hourly rate for her services is $300, and that the motions required a total of 3 hours to prepare, another 2 hours to prepare the reply papers, and 3 hours for travel and appearance, plus $120 in filing fees. In light of the simplicity of these motions, the amount should be reduced accordingly. Thus, the Court awards a total of $1,120 in sanctions based on a rate of $250 per hour for 4 hours total (3 hours to prepare the motions and replies plus 1 hour to appear), plus $120 in filing fees.

ENRIQUE JOYA REYES is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Dated: February 13, 2015

_______________________
Howard L. Halm
Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court