On 14 February 2014, the motion of Defendants Bric Galuteria and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Galuteria”) to compel the following discovery:
(a) requests for production of documents,
(b) requests for admission,
(c) special interrogatories,
(d) form interrogatories,
and monetary sanctions was argued and submitted. Cross-Defendants Gabriela Lopez (“Lopez”) and Felix Melendez (“Melendez”), and Defendant Son Tran (“Tran”) did not file formal opposition to the motion.
All parties are reminded that all papers must comply with Rule of Court 3.1110(f).
I. Background
This action is for the alleged violations of the California Unfair Competition Act, intentional misrepresentation, concealment, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, intentional inflection of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiffs Antonio Palomino and Olivia Palomino (“Plaintiffs”) allege that Defendant Yolanda Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”), acting as real estate agent for Melendez and Lopez, misrepresented an equity line of credit on their existing property at 1409 Tourney Drive, San Jose, CA for papers to cosign on a different home at 1095 Ribisi Circle, San Jose, CA (“Ribisi Property”).
Allegedly unaware of the equity line of credit, Plaintiffs defaulted on the loan. Moreover, the Ribisi Property went into foreclosure and was sold to a third party in 2009.

II. Discovery Dispute
On 18 October 2012, a mediation took place among Plaintiffs and Gonzalez et al. in which the group signed a Stipulation for Settlement agreement. Galuteria did not join the mediation. On 28 January 2014, a motion for determination of good faith settlement was heard in Department 5.
On 17 October 2013, Galuteria served Tran the following discovery requests:
(a) requests for production of documents,
(b) requests for admission,
(c) special interrogatories, and
(d) form interrogatories.
The discovery was due on or before 21 November 2013. On 4 December 2013, Galuteria sent a meet and confer letter providing an additional 7 days for discovery responses but received no responses or objections.
On 28 October 2013, Galuteria served Lopez and Melendez the following discovery requests:
(a) requests for production of documents,
(b) requests for admission,
(c) special interrogatories, and
(d) form interrogatories.
The discovery was due on or before 2 December 2013. On 4 December 2013, Galuteria sent a meet and confer letter providing an additional 7 days for discovery responses but received no responses or objections.
III. Discussion
A. Requests for Production of Documents
Demands for production of documents may be propounded upon an adverse party in an attempt to seek relevant information. (Code of Civil of Procedure § 2017.010.) Absent an extension granted by counsel, a party must respond to the demand within 30 days. (Code of Civil of Procedure § 2031.260.) If a party to whom a demand for inspection is directed fails to serve a timely response the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300(b).) A party that fails to serve a timely response waives any objection to the demand, including privilege. (Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300(a).)
i. Requests for Production of Documents to Lopez
Here, Lopez has not responded to Galuteria’s demand for inspection and has not provided a justification for the lack of response. Galuteria served Lopez with the First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on 28 October 2013. Galuteria did not receive a timely response, and sent a meet and confer letter to Lopez regarding the overdue responses on 4 December 2013, which granted an extension until 11 December 2013 for Lopez to respond without objection. As of 16 December 2013, Lopez has failed to respond or object to Galuteria’s outstanding discovery request. As a result, an order to compel a response to the demand is appropriate.
Accordingly, Galuteria’s Motion to Compel Lopez’s Responses to First Set of Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Lopez shall respond to the discovery without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
ii. Requests for Production of Documents to Tran
Here, Tran has not responded to Galuteria’s demand for inspection and has not provided a justification for the lack of response. Galuteria served Tran with the First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on 28 October 2013. Galuteria did not receive a timely response, and sent a meet and confer letter to Tran regarding the overdue responses on 4 December 2013, which granted an extension until 11 December 2013 for Tran to respond without objection. As of 16 December 2013, Tran has failed to respond or object to Galuteria’s outstanding discovery request. As a result, an order to compel a response to the demand is appropriate.
Accordingly, Galuteria’s Motion to Compel Son Tran’s Responses to First Set of Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Tran shall respond to the discovery without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
iii. Requests for Production of Documents to Melendez
Here, Melendez has not responded to Galuteria’s demand for inspection and has not provided a justification for the lack of response. Galuteria served Melendez with the First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on 28 October 2013. Galuteria did not receive a timely response, and sent a meet and confer letter to Melendez regarding the overdue responses on 4 December 2013, which granted an extension until 11 December 2013 for Melendez to respond without objection. As of 16 December 2013, Melendez has failed to respond or object to Galuteria’s outstanding discovery request. As a result, an order to compel a response to the demand is appropriate.
Accordingly, Galuteria’s Motion to Compel Melendez’s Responses to First Set of Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Melendez shall respond to the discovery without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
B. Requests for Admissions
The discovering party can make a motion to deem as admitted any unanswered requests for admission or any requests answered in a late or unverified response. (Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280 (b).) The party to whom Requests for Admissions are directed shall respond within 30 days after service. (Code of Civil Procedure §2033.250(a).) Failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions results in waiver of all objections, including privilege, unless the party has substantially complied or there is mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(a).) Unless the Court finds the responding party has substantially complied with the Request for Admissions before the hearing, it is mandatory that monetary sanctions be imposed. (Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(c).)
i. Requests for Admissions to Lopez
In this case, Galuteria served and propounded requests for admissions upon Lopez on 28 October 2013. Responses were due on 2 December 2013. To date, Lopez has failed to respond, object, or make any admissions. There is no evidence of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Galuteria is requesting that matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. There is no evidence that Lopez intends to substantially comply with the requests for admissions before this hearing.
Defendant Galuteria’s Motion to Have Matters Deemed Admitted in First Set of Requests for Admissions to Cross-Defendant Lopez is GRANTED. Requests for Admissions 1- 7 are deemed admitted.
ii. Requests for Admissions to Tran
In this case, Galuteria served and propounded requests for admissions upon Tran on 28 October 2013. Responses were due on 2 December 2013. To date, Tran has failed to respond, object, or make any admissions. There is no evidence of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Galuteria is requesting that matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. There is no evidence that Tran intends to substantially comply with the requests for admissions before this hearing.
Defendant Galuteria’s Motion to Have Matters Deemed Admitted in First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Tran is GRANTED. Requests for Admissions 1-13 are deemed admitted.
iii. Requests for Admissions to Melendez
In this case, Galuteria served and propounded requests for admissions upon Melendez on 28 October 2013. Responses were due on 2 December 2013. To date, Melendez has failed to respond, object, or make any admissions. There is no evidence of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Galuteria is requesting that matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. There is no evidence that Melendez intends to substantially comply with the requests for admissions before this hearing.
Defendant Galuteria’s Motion to Have Matters Deemed Admitted in First Set of Requests for Admissions to Cross-Defendant Melendez is GRANTED. Requests for Admissions 1-7 are deemed admitted.
C. Special Interrogatories
If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one passed on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). (Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(a).) The propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(b).)
i. Special Interrogatories to Lopez
In this case, Galuteria served special interrogatories to Gabriela Lopez but received no response or discovery. Galuteria’s discovery requests were reasonable in quantity and essential to investigate the cause of action. Each discovery method used by Galuteria is authorized under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Galuteria’s motion to compel Lopez to provide responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED. Lopez shall respond to the discovery requests without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
ii. Special Interrogatories to Tran
In this case, Galuteria served special interrogatories to Tran but received no response or discovery. Galuteria’s discovery requests were reasonable in quantity and essential to investigate the cause of action. Each discovery method used by Galuteria is authorized under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Galuteria’s motion to compel Tran to provide responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED. Tran shall respond to the discovery requests without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
iii. Special Interrogatories to Melendez
In this case, Galuteria served special interrogatories to Melendez but received no response or discovery. Galuteria’s discovery requests were reasonable in quantity and essential to investigate the cause of action. Each discovery method used by Galuteria is authorized under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Galuteria’s motion to compel Melendez to provide responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED. Melendez shall respond to the discovery requests without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
D. Form Interrogatories
If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2030.290(a).) The propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2030.290(b).)
i. Form Interrogatories to Lopez
In this case, Galuteria served form interrogatories to Lopez but received no responses. Galuteria’s discovery requests were reasonable in quantity and essential to investigate the cause of action. Each discovery method used by Galuteria is authorized under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Galuteria’s motion to compel Lopez to provide responses to form interrogatories is GRANTED. Lopez shall respond to the discovery without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
ii. Form Interrogatories to Tran
In this case, Galuteria served form interrogatories to Tran but received no responses. Galuteria’s discovery requests were reasonable in quantity and essential to investigate the cause of action. Each discovery method used by Galuteria is authorized under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Galuteria’s motion to compel Tran to provide responses to form interrogatories is GRANTED. Tran shall respond to the discovery without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
iii. Form Interrogatories to Melendez
In this case, Galuteria served form interrogatories to Melendez but received no responses. Galuteria’s discovery requests were reasonable in quantity and essential to investigate the cause of action. Each discovery method used by Galuteria is authorized under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Galuteria’s motion to compel Melendez to provide responses to form interrogatories is GRANTED. Melendez shall respond to the discovery without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
E. Monetary Sanctions
Sanctions are mandatory against a party whose failure to timely respond necessitated a motion to deem requests admitted. (Code of Civil Procedure §2033.280(c).) A code compliant request for sanctions identifies every party against whom sanctions are sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. (Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.040.) The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought. (Id.)
Here, Galuteria is seeking monetary sanctions. The requests are code-compliant.
Galuteria states that counsel spent an hour for each motion, for a total of 12 hours for all 12 motions. The Court believes that this is an unreasonable amount of time to complete the present motions, particularly considering that many of the motions are the same. The Court believes that six hours is an appropriate amount of time for the present motions. Galuteria’s counsel’s declaration indicates a rate of $275.00 per hour. This is an appropriate rate. The Court will grant a total amount of $1,650.00.
Galuteria’s counsel also states that he anticipates spending 0.8 hours preparing the anticipated reply for each motion and one hour for preparing for and attending the hearing for each motion. These amounts are speculative at present. Sanctions should be awarded only for expenses actually incurred. (See Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1551.) In the event that a hearing is required, counsel may bring this to the attention of the Court at that time.
Galuteria’s counsel also states that he will incur $40.00 in filing fees for each motion, for a total amount of $480.00. This is a reasonable expense and the Court will grant this amount.
Galuteria’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions against Gabriela Lopez is GRANTED. Gabriela Lopez shall pay $710.00 to Galuteria within 20 days of the date of this order.
Galuteria’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions against Son Tran is GRANTED. Son Tran shall pay $710.00 to Galuteria within 20 days of the date of this order.
Galuteria’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions against Felix Melendez is GRANTED. Felix Melendez shall pay $710.00 to Galuteria within 20 days of the date of this order.
IV. Conclusion
Galuteria’s Motion to Compel Gabriela Lopez’s Responses to First Set of Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Gabriela Lopez shall respond to the discovery without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
Galuteria’s Motion to Compel Son Tran’s Responses to First Set of Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Son Tran shall respond to the discovery without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
Galuteria’s Motion to Compel Felix Melendez’s Responses to First Set of Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Felix Melendez shall respond to the discovery without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
Defendant Bric Galuteria’s Motion to Have Matters Deemed Admitted in First Set of Requests for Admissions to Cross-Defendant Gabriela Lopez is GRANTED. Requests for Admissions 1- 7 are deemed admitted.
Defendant Bric Galuteria’s Motion to Have Matters Deemed Admitted in First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Son Tran is GRANTED. Requests for Admissions 1-13 are deemed admitted.
Defendant Bric Galuteria’s Motion to Have Matters Deemed Admitted in First Set of Requests for Admissions to Cross-Defendant Felix Melendez is GRANTED. Requests for Admissions 1-7 are deemed admitted.
Galuteria’s motion to compel Gabriela Lopez to provide responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED. Gabriela Lopez shall respond to the discovery requests without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
Galuteria’s motion to compel Son Tran to provide responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED. Son Tran shall respond to the discovery requests without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
Galuteria’s motion to compel Felix Melendez to provide responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED. Felix Melendez shall respond to the discovery requests without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
Galuteria’s motion to compel Gabriela Lopez to provide responses to form interrogatories is GRANTED. Gabriela Lopez shall respond to the discovery without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
Galuteria’s motion to compel Son Tran to provide responses to form interrogatories is GRANTED. Son Tran shall respond to the discovery without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
Galuteria’s motion to compel Felix Melendez to provide responses to form interrogatories is GRANTED. Felix Melendez shall respond to the discovery without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
Galuteria’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions against Gabriela Lopez is GRANTED. Gabriela Lopez shall pay $710.00 to Galuteria within 20 days of the date of this order.
Galuteria’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions against Son Tran is GRANTED. Son Tran shall pay $710.00 to Galuteria within 20 days of the date of this order.
Galuteria’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions against Felix Melendez is GRANTED. Felix Melendez shall pay $710.00 to Galuteria within 20 days of the date of this order.