This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/08/2021 at 02:30:05 (UTC).

ELSA RUIZ-DE-CHAVEZ VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 12/31/2019 ELSA RUIZ-DE-CHAVEZ filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against STATE OF CALIFORNIA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1824

  • Filing Date:

    12/31/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

RUIZ-DE-CHAVEZ ELSA

Defendants

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

KEESHAN OFFICER

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

WILDE JARED DAVID

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

YEAGER KENNETH

Defendant Attorneys

CHU-FUJITA BETTY

DIAMOND ALEXIS DANIELLE

DIAMOND ALEXIS

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

9/10/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

7/26/2021: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Stipulation (name extension) - No Order - Stipulation - No Order to Continue Trial Date and Related Dates

5/14/2021: Stipulation (name extension) - No Order - Stipulation - No Order to Continue Trial Date and Related Dates

Answer - Answer

4/16/2021: Answer - Answer

Order - Dismissal - Order - Dismissal

3/16/2021: Order - Dismissal - Order - Dismissal

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

2/4/2021: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Reply (name extension) - Reply Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Defendants State of California, Acting by and Through the California Highway Patrol, and Officer Keeshan's

2/4/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Defendants State of California, Acting by and Through the California Highway Patrol, and Officer Keeshan's

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or In the Alternative Summary Adjudication

1/27/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or In the Alternative Summary Adjudication

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

11/13/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

11/13/2020: Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Betty Chu-Fujita

11/13/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Betty Chu-Fujita

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

8/20/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

4/16/2020: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Answer - Answer

2/21/2020: Answer - Answer

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

2/11/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

1/30/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Complaint - Complaint

12/31/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

12/31/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

43 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/27/2021
  • Hearing12/27/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: State of California, acting by and through the California Highway Patrol Erroneously Sued As State of California (Defendant); State of California, acting by and through the California Highway Patrol Erroneously Sued As California Highway Patrol (Defendant); Jared David Wilde (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for 09/08/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 09/08/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: State of California, acting by and through the California Highway Patrol Erroneously Sued As State of California (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"))

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 08/19/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 08/19/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2021
  • DocketReply to Opposition to Motion for Order Compelling Production of Documents and Sanctions; Filed by: State of California, acting by and through the California Highway Patrol Erroneously Sued As State of California (Defendant); State of California, acting by and through the California Highway Patrol Erroneously Sued As California Highway Patrol (Defendant); Jared David Wilde (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2021
  • DocketOpposition to Defendant's Motion for Order to Compel Responses; Filed by: Elsa Ruiz-De-Chavez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for 09/08/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
68 More Docket Entries
  • 01/30/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Elsa Ruiz-De-Chavez (Plaintiff); As to: State of California (Defendant); Service Date: 01/23/2020; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Elsa Ruiz-De-Chavez (Plaintiff); As to: California Highway Patrol (Defendant); Service Date: 01/23/2020; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/29/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/03/2023 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Elsa Ruiz-De-Chavez (Plaintiff); As to: State of California (Defendant); California Highway Patrol (Defendant); Officer Keeshan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Elsa Ruiz-De-Chavez (Plaintiff); As to: State of California (Defendant); California Highway Patrol (Defendant); Officer Keeshan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Elsa Ruiz-De-Chavez (Plaintiff); As to: State of California (Defendant); California Highway Patrol (Defendant); Officer Keeshan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 19STLC11824 Hearing Date: September 8, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nTO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR\r\nORDER AWARDING MONETARY SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendants\r\nState of California and Officer Jared Wilde

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF\r\nDOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP §§ 2031.050; 2031.300)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants State of California and\r\nOfficer Jared Wilde’s Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Request for\r\nProduction is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff is ordered to serve supplemental\r\nresponses as discussed herein without objections within thirty (30) days of\r\nthis order. Defendants’ request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of\r\n$660.00 to be paid to Defendants’ counsel within thirty (30) days of this\r\norder.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of September\r\n2, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof September 2, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On December 31,\r\n2019, Plaintiff Elsa Ruiz-de-Chavez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action alleging\r\nmotor vehicle negligence against Defendants State of California, acting by and\r\nthrough the California Highway Patrol, erroneously separately sued as State of\r\nCalifornia and California Highway Patrol (“State of California”) and Officer\r\nKeeshan.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants State of California and Officer Keeshan filed\r\na joint Answer on February 21, 2020. Plaintiff filed an amendment to the\r\nComplaint substituting Officer Jared David Wilde (“Wilde”) for Doe 1. On March\r\n16, 2021, Defendant Officer Keeshan was dismissed from this action. (3/16/21\r\nOrder of Dismissal.) Defendant Wilde filed an Answer on April 16.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On July 26, Defendants filed a motion for an order\r\ncompelling the production of documents requested in a notice of deposition. The\r\nCourt granted this motion on August 19 and ordered Plaintiff to produce documents\r\nresponsive to the following four categories: (1) any and all documents that\r\nsupport Plaintiff’s claim for damages including but not limited to medical\r\nbills and liens that she incurred as a result of the incident on May 25, 2019;\r\n(2) any and all documents that refer in any manner to the damage to Plaintiff’s\r\nvehicle alleged to have been caused by the incident on May 25, 2019, including\r\nany written estimate or evaluation; (3) any and all medical records related to\r\nPlaintiff’s prior complaints of back pain for the past ten years; and (4) any\r\nand all documents that support Plaintiff’s claim that a healthcare provider\r\nadvised her that she may require future or additional treatment for her alleged\r\ninjuries that Plaintiff attributes to the incident on May 25, 2019. (8/19/21\r\nMinute Order; 7/26/21 Motion, Diamond Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff was\r\nordered to serve responsive documents within thirty (30) days and to pay\r\nsanctions of $660.00. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On July 27, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Compel\r\nResponses to Supplemental Request for Production and Request for Order Awarding\r\nMonetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). No opposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A party must respond to requests for production of\r\ndocuments within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd.\r\n(a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents are directed does\r\nnot provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order\r\ncompelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd.\r\n(c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one\r\nbased on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300,\r\nsubd. (a).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In addition to initial requests for production, a party\r\nmay propound a supplemental demand for production of any later acquired or\r\ndiscovered information or documents, tangible things, land or other property,\r\nor electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of\r\nthe responding party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.050, subd. (a).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to demand for\r\ninspection . . ., the demanding party may move for an order compelling further\r\nresponse if the demanding party deems that (1) [a] statement of compliance with\r\nthe demand is incomplete; (2) [a] representation of inability to comply is\r\ninadequate, incomplete, or evasive; [or] (3) [a]n objection in the response is\r\nwithout merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of\r\nservice of the verified response, otherwise the propounding party waives any\r\nright to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)\r\nThe motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ\r\nProc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Finally, California Rules of\r\nCourt, rule 3.1345 requires that all motions involving further discovery\r\ncontain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a\r\nstatement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal.\r\nRules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nDiscussion\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, Defendants’ counsel served Plaintiff’s counsel with\r\na Supplemental Request for Production on April 20, 2021 via email. (Mot.,\r\nDiamond Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Defendants requested as follows:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“Please review YOUR responses to the Request for\r\nProduction, Set One, previously served upon YOU in this action. If, for any\r\nreason, a response is no longer accurate and/or complete, identify each\r\naffected request by number and state whatever information is necessary to make\r\nthe response correct and/or complete as of this date.”

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants’ counsel received Plaintiff’s tardy and unverified\r\nresponse on May 27, 2021. (Id. at ¶ 3, Exh. B.) Unverified responses are\r\ntantamount to no responses at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988)\r\n206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36.) Defendants’ counsel sent Plaintiff’s\r\ncounsel a meet and confer letter on June 3 regarding the defective response. (Mot.,\r\nDiamond Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. C.) On June 10, Plaintiff served amended responses\r\nwith a verification via email. (Id., Exh. D.) Plaintiff responded as\r\nfollows:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“Plaintiff has reviewed her prior response to Defendants’\r\nRequest for Documents, and said responses are complete and accurate. No changes\r\nor additional information is needed to supplement such responses.”

\r\n\r\n

(Id.)\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants’ counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel a second\r\nmeet and confer letter on June 17 explaining that, based on Plaintiff’s deposition\r\ntestimony, the responses to Request Nos. 1-4 and 9-14 were no longer complete\r\nor accurate. (Id. at ¶ 5, Exh. E.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond\r\nto the meet and confer letter. (Id.) Defendants timely filed this Motion\r\nwith the required separate statement on July 27.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

First, the Court notes that Requests Nos. 1-4 at issue\r\nhere fall within the categories of documents Plaintiff was ordered to produce\r\non August 19. As discussed above, the Court ordered Plaintiff, in part, to\r\nproduce (1) any and all documents that support Plaintiff’s claim for damages\r\nincluding but not limited to medical bills and liens that she incurred as a\r\nresult of the incident on May 25, 2019 and (2) any and all documents that refer\r\nin any manner to the damage to Plaintiff’s vehicle alleged to have been caused\r\nby the incident on May 25, 2019, including any written estimate or evaluation.\r\n(8/19/21 Minute Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Request Nos. 1 and 2 seek all medical records, reports,\r\nand billings of any medical provider that provided treatment for the injuries\r\nPlaintiff alleges to have sustained in the accident. Request No. 3 seeks all\r\nwritings referring in any manner to the damage Plaintiff alleges her vehicle\r\nsustained in the subject accident. Request No. 4 seeks all writings referring\r\nin any manner to medication purchased by Plaintiff for the treatment of the\r\ninjuries she alleges to have sustained in the subject accident.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Because ordering Plaintiff to\r\nproduce documents would be unnecessarily duplicative, Defendants’ request to\r\ncompel production as to Request Nos. 1-4 are DENIED AS MOOT.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court now examines Request Nos. 9-14.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Request\r\nfor Production No. 9

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Request No. 9 seeks all writings referring\r\nin any manner to any prior bodily injuries suffered within 10 years of the\r\nsubject accident. (Mot., Sep. Stmt., p. 4.) Plaintiff’s initial response stated\r\nthat after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no such responsive were,\r\nor had ever been, in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. (Id.)\r\nAs previously stated, Plaintiff’s supplemental response indicated that no\r\nchanges or additional information was needed to supplement the previous\r\nresponse.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants argue a supplemental\r\nresponse is needed because at Plaintiff’s June 9 deposition, the transcript of\r\nwhich was submitted for the Court’s review, she testified she was involved in\r\nanother vehicle accident in 2016 and indicated she has documentation of this\r\naccident. (Id.; Diamond Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. H.) Defendants further argue\r\nprevious injuries are directly relevant to the extent of the injuries and\r\ndamages sustained in this accident. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file an\r\nopposition demonstrating a further response is not warranted.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to\r\nprovide a further response without objection to Request No. 9.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Request\r\nfor Production No. 10

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Request No. 10 seeks all writings\r\nreferring in any manner to any policy of motor vehicle liability insurance\r\ncovering Plaintiff and or the vehicle at the time of the subject accident.\r\n(Mot., Sep. Stmt., p. 5.) Plaintiff initially responded that her auto policy\r\nfrom Bristol West had been requested and upon receipt would be forwarded to\r\nDefendants and her response to this request would be amended. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants argue a further response\r\nis needed because Plaintiff testified at her June 9 deposition that she had\r\nautomobile insurance and that she would provide a copy. (Id.) Defendants\r\ndo not clarify, however, whether they received a copy of the Bristol West\r\npolicy referenced in Plaintiff’s initial responses. Thus, it is unclear to the\r\nCourt whether a further response is warranted and for this reason, Defendants’\r\nrequest to compel a further response is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Request\r\nfor Production No. 11\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Request No. 11 seeks all writings\r\nreferring in any manner to any prior property damage suffered by the vehicle\r\nPlaintiff was operating at the time of the subject accident. (Mot., Sep. Stmt.,\r\np. 5.) Plaintiff’s initial response stated that after a diligent search and reasonable\r\ninquiry, no such responsive were, or had ever been, in Plaintiff’s possession,\r\ncustody or control. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants argue a further response\r\nis required because, at her June 9 deposition, Plaintiff testified she had\r\nprior property damage to the vehicle she was operating at the time of the\r\nsubject accident, specifically in 2016 and seven months ago. (Id.)\r\nPlaintiff points to pages 22, 24-27, and 84-86 of Plaintiff’s deposition in\r\nsupport of a further response to this request.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s testimony in the\r\nhighlighted pages, however, indicates that the 2016 accident involved a\r\ndifferent vehicle. (Id., Diamond Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. H, Chavez Depo, p.\r\n22:2-15.) However, there does appear to have been property damage to the\r\nvehicle in 2020 in an incident that occurred after the subject accident. (Id.,\r\npp. 84-86.) Subsequent property damages are relevant to the damages Plaintiff\r\nseeks as they should be excluded. Plaintiff did not file an opposition\r\ndemonstrating a further response is not warranted.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to serve\r\na further response without objection to this request.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Interrogatory\r\nNo. 12

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Request No. 12 seeks “[a]ll writings\r\n(as defined in Evidence Code section 250) referring in any manner to any health\r\ncare provider who provided treatment to [Plaintiff] for prior bodily injuries\r\nsuffered by [Plaintiff].” (Mot., Sep. Stmt., pp. 5-6.) Plaintiff’s initial\r\nresponse indicated that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff\r\nwas unable to comply with this request because no documents were, or had ever\r\nbeen, in the control, possession, or custody of Plaintiff. (Id.)\r\nPlaintiff’s supplemental response indicated that no changes or additional\r\ninformation was needed to supplement the previous response.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants argue a further response\r\nis warranted because at her June 9 deposition, Plaintiff testified that after a\r\n2016 automobile accident, she was treated by a chiropractor for her neck and\r\nback injuries twice a week for around 15 weeks. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court is not persuaded.\r\nDefendants’ request is too broad, encompassing all injuries\r\nsuffered by Plaintiff, not just the neck and back injury in 2016. This request\r\nis also not limited to a specific time period.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Thus, Defendants’ request to compel\r\na further answer to this request is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court notes that on August 19,\r\nthe Court ordered Plaintiff to provide any and all medical records related to\r\nPlaintiff’s prior complaints of back pain for the past ten years as requested\r\nin Plaintiff’s notice of deposition. (8/19/21 Minute Order.) Thus, to the\r\nextent Defendants seek information regarding this particular injury, a response\r\nhas already been compelled.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Request\r\nfor Production No. 13

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Request No. 13 seeks “[a]ll writings\r\n(as defined in Evidence Code section 250) referring in any manner to any\r\nlawsuit to which you have been a party, other than the present action.” (Mot.,\r\nSep. Stmt., p. 6.) Plaintiff’s initial response indicated that after a diligent\r\nsearch and reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff was unable to comply because no such\r\ndocuments were, or have ever been, in Plaintiff’s control, possession, or\r\ncustody. (Id.) Plaintiff’s supplemental response indicated that no\r\nchanges or additional information was needed to supplement the previous\r\nresponse.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants argue a further response\r\nis required because, at her June 9 deposition, Plaintiff testified she was a\r\nparty to a lawsuit that arose from a 2016 automobile accident. (Id.)\r\nWithout further explanation, Defendants conclude these documents must be\r\nproduced because they are “relevant to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and\r\ndamages.”

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Not only have Defendants not clearly\r\narticulated why these documents are directly relevant, but the request itself\r\nis also overly broad. It requires Plaintiff to provide information regarding all\r\nlawsuits to which she has ever been a party, without any\r\nlimitation as to time or subject matter. As the request is overly broad, the\r\nCourt DECLINES to compel a further response.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Request\r\nfor Production No. 14

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Request No. 14 seeks all writings\r\nreferring in any way to any health insurance covering Plaintiff at the time of\r\nthe subject accident. (Mot., Sep. Stmt., pp. 6-7.) Plaintiff initially\r\nresponded that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff was\r\nunable to comply with the request because no such documents were, or had ever\r\nbeen, in the custody, possession, or control of Plaintiff. (Id.)\r\nPlaintiff’s supplemental response indicated that no changes or additional\r\ninformation was needed to supplement the previous response.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants argue a further response\r\nis required because, at her June 9 deposition, Plaintiff testified that she had\r\nhealth insurance at the time of the subject accident and could provide a copy\r\nof it. (Id.) Whether Plaintiff had health insurance at the time of the\r\nsubject accident is relevant to this accident and the treatment she may have\r\nreceived. Plaintiff did not file an opposition demonstrating a further response\r\nshould not be compelled.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to serve\r\na supplemental response, without objection, to this request.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

B. Sanctions

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

If a\r\nmotion to compel a further response to the request for production of documents is granted, the Court shall impose monetary\r\nsanctions, “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with\r\nsubstantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of\r\nthe sanction unjust.” (Id. § 2031.310(h).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The\r\nCourt finds that Plaintiff did not act with substantial justification in\r\nfailing to properly supplement its responses. Nor has Plaintiff filed an\r\nopposition demonstrating that some other circumstance would make the imposition\r\nof sanctions unjust.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants\r\nseek sanctions of $880.00 based on four hours of attorney time billed at\r\n$220.00 per hour. (Mot., Diamond Decl., ¶ 6.) Given that the Court denied\r\nseveral of Defendants’ requests to compel a further response, the Court finds\r\n$660.00, based on three hours of attorney time, to be reasonable. Sanctions are\r\nto be paid to Defendants’ counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this\r\norder.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

IV. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants\r\nState of California and Officer Jared Wilde’s Motion to Compel Responses to\r\nSupplemental Request for Production is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff is ordered to\r\nserve supplemental responses as discussed herein without objections within\r\nthirty (30) days of this order. Defendants’ request for sanctions is also\r\nGRANTED in the amount of $660.00 to be paid to Defendants’ counsel within\r\nthirty (30) days of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'b'

Case Number: 19STLC11824 Hearing Date: August 19, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nFOR ORDER COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendants\r\nState of California and Officer Jared Wilde

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DESCRIBED IN DEPOSITION NOTICE;\r\nREQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 2025.450)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants State of California and\r\nOfficer Jared Wilde’s Motion for Order Compelling Production of Documents is\r\nGRANTED. Plaintiff must produce the requested documents in the Amended Notice\r\nof Deposition within thirty (30) days of this order. Defendants’ request for\r\nsanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $660.00 to be paid by Plaintiff’s\r\ncounsel Kenneth Yeager only within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: Filed on August 9, 2021 [X] Late [\r\n ] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: Filed on\r\nAugust 12, 2021 [ ] Late [ ]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On December 31, 2019, Plaintiff Elsa Ruiz-de-Chavez\r\n(“Plaintiff”) filed an action alleging motor vehicle negligence against\r\nDefendants State of California, acting by and through the California Highway\r\nPatrol, erroneously separately sued as State of California and California\r\nHighway Patrol (“State of California”) and Officer Keeshan.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants State of California and Officer Keeshan filed\r\na joint Answer on February 21, 2020. Plaintiff filed an amendment to the\r\nComplaint substituting Officer Jared David Wilde (“Wilde”) for Doe 1. On March\r\n16, 2021, Defendant Officer Keeshan was dismissed from this action. (3/16/21\r\nOrder of Dismissal.) Defendant Wilde filed an Answer on April 16.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On July 26, Defendants State of California filed the\r\ninstant Motion for Order Compelling Production of Documents and for Sanctions\r\n(the “Motion”). Plaintiff filed a late opposition on August 9, 2021 and moving\r\nDefendants filed a reply brief on August 12.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (a)\r\nprovides:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an\r\nofficer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person\r\ndesignated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without\r\nhaving served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for\r\nexamination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any\r\ndocument, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in\r\nthe deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order\r\ncompelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for\r\ninspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible\r\nthing described in the deposition notice.”

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) (Emphasis\r\nadded.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A motion under this section requires\r\nthat the moving party “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying\r\nthe production for inspection of any document, electronically stored\r\ninformation, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ.\r\nProc., § 2025.450, subd. (b).) It must also be accompanied by a meet and confer\r\ndeclaration. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Finally, the court must impose monetary sanctions if the\r\nmotion to compel is granted unless the one subject to sanctions acted with\r\nsubstantial justification or other circumstances would make the imposition of\r\nthe sanction unjust. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nDiscussion\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving Defendants provide evidence that Plaintiff was\r\nserved with an Amended Notice of Deposition on May 20, 2021. (Mot., Diamond\r\nDecl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s deposition was scheduled for June 9, 2021 and\r\nrequested the production of four categories of documents. (Id.) Specifically,\r\nDefendants sought documents related to Plaintiff’s requests for medical bills\r\nand liens incurred as a result of the subject accident, documents related to\r\nPlaintiff’s claims for damage to her vehicle, documents relating to any\r\ninjuries Plaintiff sustained over the past ten years, and documents related to\r\nany additional and future medical care Plaintiff may need to treat her alleged\r\ninjuries. (Id.) Defendants’ counsel did not receive any objection to the\r\ndeposition notice. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The deposition took place as scheduled on June 9, but\r\nPlaintiff did not produce any responsive documents as requested. (Id. at\r\n¶ 3, Exh. B.) Defendants submit a copy of the deposition transcript\r\ndemonstrating that Plaintiff testified she was aware of the document request\r\nand when she was asked about each of the categories of documents, she testified\r\nher attorney was in the possession of those responsive documents. (Id.) Defendants’\r\ncounsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter regarding\r\nPlaintiff’s failure to produce the requested documents at the June 9\r\ndeposition. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exh. C.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to\r\nthe meet and confer letter. (Id.) Defendants explain these documents are\r\nnecessary to prepare for trial as Plaintiff’s injuries and damages are at\r\nissue. (Mot., p. 4.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In her late opposition, Plaintiff argues that this Motion\r\nis moot because “Plaintiff filed complete responses to Defendant’s Request for\r\nDocuments, Set One, on or about July 17, 2020” without objections and argues\r\nsanctions should be denied. (Oppo., pp. 1-2.) However, Plaintiff provided no documentary\r\nevidence, not even a declaration from her attorney, supporting her position.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Based on the above, the Court finds there is good cause\r\nfor compelling Plaintiff to produce the documents requested in the Amended\r\nNotice of Deposition.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In addition, Plaintiff has not demonstrated the failure\r\nto produce the requested documents was with substantial justification or that\r\nthe imposition of sanctions is otherwise unjust. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450,\r\nsubd. (g)(1).) Defendants request sanctions of $880.00 based on four (4) hours\r\nof attorney time billed at $220.00 per hour. (Mot., Diamond Decl., ¶ 5.)\r\nHowever, the amount of sanctions sought is excessive. The Court finds $660.00,\r\nbased on 3 hours of attorney time, to be reasonable. Because Plaintiff\r\ntestified the responsive documents were in the possession of her attorney,\r\nsanctions are to be paid by Plaintiff’s attorney Kenneth Yeager only within\r\nthirty (30) days of notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

IV. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants\r\nState of California and Officer Jared Wilde’s Motion for Order Compelling\r\nProduction of Documents is GRANTED. Plaintiff must produce the requested\r\ndocuments in the Amended Notice of Deposition within thirty (30) days of this\r\norder. Defendants’ request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of\r\n$660.00 to be paid by Plaintiff’s counsel Kenneth Yeager only within thirty\r\n(30) days of notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'

Case Number: 19STLC11824    Hearing Date: March 15, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:   Mon., March 15, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Ruiz De Chavez v. State of California, et alCOMPL. FILED: 12-31-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC11824 DISC. C/O: 05-30-21

NOTICE:   OK DISC. MOT. C/O:    06-14-21

TRIAL DATE: 06-29-21

PROCEEDINGS    MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S ADMISSIONS ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER UNDER CCP 2033.300

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Elsa Ruiz De Chavez

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS

(CCP § 2033.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Elsa Ruiz De Chavez’s Motion for Relief from Order Under CCP 2033.300 is GRANTED. The Requests for Admission, Set One, deemed admitted on August 20, 2020, are hereby WITHDRAWN.

SERVICE

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of March 11, 2021 [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 11, 2021 [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On December 31, 2019, Plaintiff Elsa Ruiz-de-Chavez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action alleging motor vehicle negligence against Defendants State of California, acting by and through the California Highway Patrol, erroneously sued as State of California and California Highway Patrol (“CHP”). Defendants CHP and Officer Keeshan filed a joint Answer on February 21, 2020.

On April 16, 2020, Defendants CHP and Officer Keeshan filed a motion to compel responses to form interrogatories and request for production of documents and a motion to deem requests for admissions admitted against Plaintiff. The Court granted the discovery motions on August 20, 2020. (8/20/20 Minute Order.)

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendants’ Motions to Establish Admissions, Alternatively, Motion for Relief from Order Under CCP 2033.300 (the “Motion”). No opposition was filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

Plaintiff seeks relief from the order deeming Requests for Admission admitted against Plaintiff on August 20, 2020. (Mot., pp. 1-2.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) A party may withdraw or amend an admission made in response to a request for admission only on leave of court granted after notice to all parties.

(b) The court may permit withdrawal or amendment of an admission only if it determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300, subds. (a), (b).)

As noted above, Defendants CHP and Officer Keeshan filed a motion to deem Requests for Admission admitted against Plaintiff on April 16, 2020. Plaintiff’s counsel explains that he delivered complete responses to the discovery on July 14 via first class mail. (Mot., Yeager Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Plaintiff’s counsel also submits a copy of an email from Defendants’ counsel wherein she confirmed receipt of the discovery responses on July 16, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 5, Exh. A.) Therein, she confirms receipt but notes that no responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for the corresponding denials to the Requests for Admission, Set One, were provided. (Id.) This demonstrates Defendants’ counsel received responses to the Requests for Admission, Set One. In that email, Defendant’s counsel also stated there were three motions to compel on calendar for August 20, and that if Plaintiff’s counsel provided the remainder of the verified responses, she would take the motions off calendar. (Id.) Plaintiff did not respond, and the morning of the August 20 hearing on the discovery motions, Defendants’ counsel notified Plaintiff’s counsel she would be making a telephonic appearance. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s counsel states that he filed oppositions to the motions to compel discovery, but inadvertently failed to attach Plaintiff’s responses to the discovery to demonstrate the motions were moot. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-8.) Because Plaintiff’s counsel sent the responses to the Requests for Admission, he believed the motion would be taken off calendar. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Further complicating the matter, Plaintiff’s counsel left the county on a pre-planned vacation on August 18, 2020 and returned on August 23, 2020. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-12.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that he was surprised by Defendant’s counsel’s August 20, 2020 email stating she would be appearing at the hearing for the discovery motions because he mistakenly believed the matters would be taken off calendar. (Id. at ¶ 12.) For this same reason, he did not appear and did not arrange to have substitute counsel to make an appearance in his stead. (Id. at ¶ 13.)

Based on the above, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to have the admissions deemed admitted against Plaintiff withdrawn. In addition, because Defendants’ counsel received responses to the Requests for Admission, Set One, at least since July 16, 2020, the Court finds Defendants would not be prejudiced by the withdrawal of admissions. Defendants have not submitted an opposition demonstrating otherwise or explaining why they did not inform the Court they received responses to the Requests for Admission, Set One, at the August 20 hearing.

Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Elsa Ruiz De Chavez’s Motion for Relief from Order Under CCP 2033.300 is GRANTED. The Requests for Admission, Set One, deemed admitted on August 20, 2020, are hereby WITHDRAWN.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC11824    Hearing Date: August 20, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., August 20, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Ruiz de Chavez v. State of California, et al. COMPL. FILED: 12-31-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC11824 DISC. C/O: 05-30-21

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: 06-14-21

TRIAL DATE: 06-29-21

PROCEEDINGS: (1) MOTION FOR ORDER ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, AND SANCTIONS

(3) MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendants State of California, acting by and through the California Highway Patrol, and Officer Keeshan

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Elsa Ruiz de Chavez

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND INTERROGATORIES; MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ (1) Motion for Order Establishing Admissions, (2) Motion for Order Compelling Response to Request for Production, and (3) Motion for Order Compelling Response to Form Interrogatories, are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses without objections to the Request for Production and Form Interrogatories within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Defendants’ request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $440.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on July 15, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of August 18, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On December 31, 2019, Plaintiff Elsa Ruiz-de-Chavez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant State of California, acting by and through the California Highway Patrol (erroneously sued as the State of California and the California Highway Patrol), and Officer Keeshan (collectively, “Defendants”). On February 21, 2020, Defendants filed an Answer.

On April 16, 2020, Defendants filed the instant (1) Motion for Order Establishing Admissions and for a Sanction (the “RFA Motion”), (2) Motion for Order Compelling Response to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Imposing a Sanction (the “Interrogatories Motion”), and (3) Motion for Order Compelling Response to Request for Production, Set One, and Imposing a Sanction (the “Production Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”). On July 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition to each discovery Motion. To date, no reply briefs have been filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Requests for Admission

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The requesting 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.” (Id. at subd. (b).) A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

Here, Defendants served Plaintiff with Requests for Admissions, Set One, on February 11, 2020, via regular mail. (RFA Motion, Diamond Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Although not statutorily required, Defendants’ counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel a letter regarding the lack of responses to their discovery requests. (Id. at ¶ 6, Exh. B.) As of the date of this Motion, Plaintiff had not provided any responses to the Request for Admissions. (Id. at ¶ 7.) In her opposition, filed, dated, and served on July 15, 2020, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ RFA Motion is moot because she “filed complete responses to Defendant’s [sic] Request for Admissions, Set One on or about July 17, 2020.” (RFA Oppo., p. 1:22-24.) (Italics added.) However, the record does not reflect Plaintiff filed any responses with the Court. In addition, Plaintiff’s opposition is wholly unsupported, as it does not include a copy of the discovery responses purportedly filed or served or a declaration from counsel attesting to the service.

Thus, Defendants are entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admissions admitted against Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

B. Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production

 

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Defendants served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One, on February 11, 2020 via regular mail. (Interrogatories Mot. & Production Mot., Diamond Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Although not required, on April 1, 2020, Defendants’ counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel a letter regarding the lack of discovery responses. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exh. B.) As of the date of this Motion, Plaintiff had not provided any responses to the Form Interrogatories or Request for Production. (Id. at ¶ 5.) As with the RFA Motion, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ Production Motion and Interrogatories Motion are moot because she filed complete responses to the discovery requests on or about July 17, 2020. (Interrogatories Oppo & Production Oppo., p. 1:22-24.) (Italics added.) However, the record does not reflect Plaintiff filed any responses with the Court. In addition, Plaintiff’s opposition is wholly unsupported, as it does not include a copy of the discovery responses purportedly filed or served, or a declaration from counsel attesting to the service.

Thus, Defendants are entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290; 2031.300.)

C. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Furthermore, it 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process. In addition, the Court is required to impose a monetary sanction on Plaintiff for her failure to respond to the Request for Admissions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

Defendants’ counsel requests a total of $1,980.00, which includes nine hours of attorney time billed at $220.00 per hour. (RFA Mot., Diamond Decl., ¶ 8; Interrogatories Mot. & Production Mot., ¶ 6.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical motions and the lack of reply. The Court finds $440.00, based on two hours of attorney time, to be reasonable. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

 

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ (1) Motion for Order Establishing Admissions, (2) Motion for Order Compelling Response to Request for Production, and (3) Motion for Order Compelling Response to Form Interrogatories, are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses without objections to the Request for Production and Form Interrogatories within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Defendants’ request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $440.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer CHU-FUJITA BETTY

Latest cases represented by Lawyer DIAMOND ALEXIS