JESUS MARTIN MARTINEZ SALDANA, AN INDIVIDUAL VS RODRIGUEZ SR TRUCKING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******4917 Hearing Date: March 3, 2023 Dept: 28

Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana’s Motion to Deem Jonathan Alexander Moran’s Request for Admissions Admitted; Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana’s Motion to Compel Jonathan Alexander Moran’s Responses to Special Interrogatories

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On February 9, 2022, Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Rodriguez Sr. Trucking, Inc. (“Rodriguez”), J Cordero Trucking, Inc. (“Cordero”) and Jonathan Alexander Moran (“Moran”) for negligence.

On May 2, 2022, Rodriguez and Moran filed an answer.

On November 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed Motions to Compel Responses to Special Interrgatories and Deem Request for Admissions Admitted, set to be heard on March 3, 2023. On February 16, 2023, Rodriguez and Moran (“Opposing Defendants”) filed an opposition. On February 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for August 9, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests the Court compel Moran to serve full and complete verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and deem Request for Admissions Admitted, Set One. Plaintiff also requests $811.65 in sanctions for each motion.

Opposing Defendants requests the Court deny the motions.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under California Code of Civil Procedure 2031.300, “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” According to CCP 2030.260, for a response to interrogatories to be timely, it must be served within 30 days of service. CCP 2031.260 provides the same 30-day deadline for request for production responses.

CCP 2023.030(a) provides that “[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.” According to CCP 2023.010(d), misuse of the discovery process includes “failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

CCP 2030.290(c) states that “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.”

CCP 2033.220 provides the following: “(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) Each answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party. (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue. (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.(c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall 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.”

Under CCP 2033.280, a party who fails to serve timely responses to requests for admissions waives any objections to the requests, including those based on privilege. Upon failure to serve a timely response, a requesting party can move for a court order that the truth of the matter specified in the requests be deemed admitted. CCP 2033.280(c) states “The court shall make this order, 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. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”

DISCUSSION

No Moving Papers

The Court notes that there are two additional motions on calendar regarding Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. However, the moving papers for these motions were never filed with the Court. The Court thus will not issue a ruling on either form of discovery.

Discovery

Plaintiff served discovery on Moran on May 4, 2022; responses were due on July 19, 2022. Moran served unverified responses; unverified responses are equivalent to no response at all.

Moran’s counsel first notes they have been unable to contact Moran to provide verifications and made Plaintiff aware of this fact. However, the Plaintiff is still entitled to timely discovery responses; Moran’s failure to provide timely verifications is still considered to be misuse of the discovery process, and subject to sanctions.

Moran also argues that a motion to compel is not the proper means to bring forward this motion—rather these motions should have been motions to compel further, as Moran served objection only responses. While it is true that a response consisting of only objections does not require verification, Moran’s special interrogatory responses do not only consist of objections. The response to the Special Interrogatories contains multiple answers with no objections. The Request for Admissions is wholly comprised of objections, which do not require verifications under CCP 2033.240. A motion to compel further is required to grant relief regarding admissions. The Court grants the motion only as to the interrogatories and requests for production.

Sanctions

Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable sanctions due to Defendants’ misuse of the discovery process in failing to provide verifications. The Court will only grant sanctions for the three granted motions.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions of $811.65 for each of motion, based on 3 hours of attorney’s time at a rate of $250.00 per hour and one $61.65 filling fee. 1.5 hours were spent drafting the motion and 1.5 hours attending the hearing. The Court accounts for the fact that the motions are substantially similar and will be heard concurrently. The Court awards sanctions of $684.94 (2 hrs. x $250 + 3 x $61.50).

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana’s Motion to Deem Jonathan Alexander Moran’s Request for Admissions Admitted is DENIED.

Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana’s Motion to Compel Jonathan Alexander Moran’s Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Rodriguez is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana’s Motion to Compel Jonathan Alexander Moran’s Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Rodriguez is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana’s Motion to Compel Jonathan Alexander Moran’s Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED. Rodriguez is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana’s Requests for Sanctions is GRANTED. Moran is ordered to pay Plaintiff $684.94 in sanctions within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Case Number: *******4917 Hearing Date: February 16, 2023 Dept: 28

Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana’s Motion to Deem Defendant Rodriguez Sr. Trucking, Inc.’s Request for Admissions Admitted; Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana’s Motion to Compel Defendant Rodriguez Sr. Trucking, Inc.’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents; Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana’s Motion to Compel Defendant Rodriguez Sr. Trucking, Inc.’s Responses to Form Interrogatories; Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana’s Motion to Compel Defendant Rodriguez Sr. Trucking, Inc.’s Responses to Special Interrogatories

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On February 9, 2022, Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Rodriguez Sr. Trucking, Inc. (“Rodriguez”), J Cordero Trucking, Inc. (“Cordero”) and Jonathan Alexander Moran (“Moran”) for negligence.

On May 2, 2022, Rodriguez and Moran filed an answer.

On October 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed Motions to Compel Discovery Responses and Deem Request for Admissions Admitted, set to be heard on February 16, 2023. On February 3, 2023, Rodriguez filed an opposition. On February 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for August 9, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests the Court compel Rodriguez to serve full and complete verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Deem Request for Admissions Admitted, Set One. Plaintiff also requests $811.65 in sanctions for each motion, except for the Request for Production, to which Plaintiff requests $1,061.65.

Rodriguez requests the Court deny the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under California Code of Civil Procedure 2031.300, “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” According to CCP 2030.260, for a response to interrogatories to be timely, it must be served within 30 days of service. CCP 2031.260 provides the same 30-day deadline for request for production responses.

CCP 2023.030(a) provides that “[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.” According to CCP 2023.010(d), misuse of the discovery process includes “failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

CCP 2030.290(c) states that “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.”

CCP 2033.220 provides the following: “(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) Each answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party. (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue. (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.(c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall 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.”

Under CCP 2033.280, a party who fails to serve timely responses to requests for admissions waives any objections to the requests, including those based on privilege. Upon failure to serve a timely response, a requesting party can move for a court order that the truth of the matter specified in the requests be deemed admitted. CCP 2033.280(c) states “The court shall make this order, 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. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”

DISCUSSION

Discovery

Plaintiff served discovery on both Rodriguez on May 4, 2022; responses were due on July 19, 2022. Rodriguez served unverified responses; unverified responses are equivalent to no response at all.

Rodriguez’s counsel first notes they have been unable to contact Rodriguez to provide verifications and made Plaintiff aware of this fact. However, the Plaintiff is still entitled to timely discovery responses; Rodriguez’s failure to provide timely verifications is still considered to be misuse of the discovery process, and subject to sanctions.

Rodriguez also argues that a motion to compel is not the proper means to bring forward this motion—rather these motions should have been motions to compel further, as Rodriguez served objection only responses. While it is true that a response consisting of only objections does not require verification, Rodriguez’s responses do not only consist of objections. The responses to the Request for Production, Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories all contain multiple answers with no objections. The Request for Admissions is wholly comprised of objections, which do not require verifications under CCP 2033.240. A motion to compel further is required to grant relief regarding admissions. Otherwise, the Court grants the motion.

Sanctions

Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable sanctions due to Defendants’ misuse of the discovery process in failing to provide verifications. The Court will only grant sanctions for the three granted motions.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions of $811.65 for each of motion, based on 3 hours of attorney’s time at a rate of $250.00 per hour and one $61.65 filling fee. 1.5 hours were spent drafting the motion and 1.5 hours attending the hearing. Plaintiff also requests an additional $250.00 sanction pursuant to CCP 2023.050 for the ongoing failure to respond to discovery. The Court accounts for the fact that the motions are substantially similar and will be heard concurrently. The Court awards sanctions of $1,434.95 across all motions.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana’s Motion to Deem Defendant Rodriguez Sr. Trucking, Inc.’s Request for Admissions Admitted is DENIED.

Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana’s Motion to Compel Defendant Rodriguez Sr. Trucking, Inc.’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Rodriguez is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana’s Motion to Compel Defendant Rodriguez Sr. Trucking, Inc.’s Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Rodriguez is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana’s Motion to Compel Defendant Rodriguez Sr. Trucking, Inc.’s Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Rodriguez is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Rodriguez is ordered to pay Plaintiff $1,434.95 in sanctions within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.