Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records defendants are represented by attorney Law Office of Vincent Real who is responsible for the legal defense in this matter.

Case Number: 16K13760 Hearing Date: April 09, 2018 Dept: 77

Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses are GRANTED. Defendants are each to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s discovery requests within twenty (20) days. Plaintiff’s motions to have his requests for admission deemed admitted are GRANTED.

Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $3,080.00, payable by Defendants, jointly and severally, to Plaintiff within thirty (30) days.

I. Background

Plaintiff Cris Durghinescu (“Plaintiff”) has brought this action against Defendants Fred Lavi and Jila Nemani based on a commercial lease agreement between the parties. Plaintiff alleges that he vacated the property in compliance with the lease agreement and provided proper notice, but Defendants have failed to return his $5,000.00 security deposit. Plaintiff alleges causes of action for breach of contract, conversion, and common count.

Plaintiff moves the Court for an order compelling initial responses from Defendants Fred Lavi and Jila Nemani (“Defendants”) to Plaintiff’s first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents. Plaintiff also moves the Court for an order that his first set of Requests for Admission propounded upon Defendants be deemed admitted. Defendants’ responses to the interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission were due on November 27, 2017, but they failed to respond to any of the discovery requests. Plaintiff also moves for monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.

II. Motions for Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (b), (c).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905–906.)

Similarly, where there has been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. (Ibid.) There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required. (Contra Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1) [good cause requirement for motion to compel further responses].)

On October 23, 2017, Plaintiff served his first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents upon Defendants by mail. Responses were due by November 27, 2017. When Plaintiff’s counsel contacted defense counsel to obtain the discovery responses on December 1, 2017, Defendants again failed to provide responses. No responses have been served as of this date. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to his first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents are GRANTED. Defendants are each to provide verified responses, without objection to Plaintiff’s discovery requests within twenty (20) days.

III. Motions to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), a “party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).” The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

On October 23, 2017, Plaintiff served his first set of Requests for Admissions upon Defendants by mail. Responses were due by November 27, 2017. When Plaintiff’s counsel contacted defense counsel to obtain the discovery responses on December 1, 2017, Defendants again failed to provide responses. Defendants have failed to file an opposition to the present motion, and no evidence has been presented to the Court to show that Defendants have served a response to Plaintiff’s discovery request. Therefore, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, Plaintiff’s motion to have his first set of Requests for Admissions deemed admitted is GRANTED.

IV. Requests for Sanctions

If a motion to compel responses to requests for production or interrogatories is filed, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction” against the losing party “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.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).) Similarly, if a motion to compel responses to requests for admission is filed, “[i]t 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).) Further, “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

The Court finds that sanctions are warranted here, as Defendants were without substantial justification in failing to respond to discovery. The Court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate to be reasonable but it reduces the requested amount of sanctions based on the lack of opposition to the motions, and it declines to award more than $60.00 for a filing fee for each motion or an appearance fee for each individual motion. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of six hours spent preparing the motions at a rate of $325.00 per hour, plus two hours spent appearing at the hearing on the motions at a rate of $325.00 per hour, plus $60.00 filing fee for each motion, totaling $3,080.00 for failure to respond to discovery.

V. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses are GRANTED. Defendants are each to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s discovery requests within twenty (20) days. Plaintiff’s motions to have his requests for admission deemed admitted are GRANTED.

Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $3,080.00, payable by Defendants, jointly and severally, to Plaintiff within thirty (30) days.

Moving party to give notice.