Case Number: VC065945 Hearing Date: June 05, 2018 Dept: SEC

NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH, INC. v. BENSON

CASE NO.: VC065945

HEARING: 06/05/18

JUDGE: LORI ANN FORUNIER

#1

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant STEVE BENSON’s responses to form interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED. CCP §2030.290.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant STEVE BENSON’s responses to special interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED. CCP §2030.290.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant STEVE BENSON’s responses and production to request for production of documents (set one) is GRANTED. CCP § 2031.300

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to deem matters in requests for admissions propounded on Defendant STEVE BENSON admitted is DENIED in part. CCP §2033.280.

Defendant STEVE BENSON is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff and its counsel of record, sanctions in the total amount of $575.00 ($275/hr. x 1 hrs.) + ($300 costs) no later than 15 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Defendant STEVE BENSON is ORDERED to provide verified responses and documents to Form Interrogatories (Set One); Special Interrogatories (Set One); and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) without objection by Tuesday, June 19, 2018. This date may be extended pursuant to agreement of the parties.

The Court notes that Plaintiff paid only one filing fee in connection with these motions. However, Plaintiff seeks four separate orders. A separate filing fee is required for each. (Gov. Code §70617(a)(4).) No later than June 5, 2018, Plaintiff is ORDERED to make payment of an addition $180.00 to the Court clerk in Dept. SE-C.

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Opposition filed as of May 31, 2018.

Motions to Compel

If a party to whom interrogatories and document demands are directed fails to respond at all, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers thereto. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) All that needs to be shown is that the discovery was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. The moving party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the matter informally before filing this motion. The failure to timely respond also waives all objections.

Here, Plaintiff has shown that Form Interrogatories (set one), Special Interrogatories (set one), and Requests for Production of Documents (set one) were properly served on Defendant STEVE BENSON on January 22, 2018. The deadline to respond has expired, and no responses of any kind have been provided. Plaintiff filed these motions on April 13, 2018, almost three months after service of the discovery. As of May 31, 2018, Defendant BENSON has not filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s motions. Therefore, the Motions to Compel are granted, and Defendant STEVE BENSON is ordered to provide verified responses and documents without objection. If any objections are asserted, it will be tantamount to no response at all and will be deemed a violation of this Court’s order.

Monetary Sanctions

“The 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.” (C.R.C. Rule 3.1348(a).)

Defendant BENSON does not oppose the instant motions to compel. As such, there is nothing to show that BENSON acted with substantial justification and the Court knows of no other circumstances which would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is granted as set forth above.

Motion to Deem Defendants’ RFA’s Admitted

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests…. The Court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect…. (c) 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…on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (CCP §2033.280.) No prior attempt to resolve the matter informally is required.

Here, RFAs were propounded by Plaintiff on January 22, 2018. Defendant STEVE BENSON has failed to provide any response. As such, the motion to deem requests for admissions admitted is granted.

Monetary Sanctions

With respect to both motions to compel RFAs, sanctions are mandatory pursuant to the terms of CCP §2033.280(c). Sanctions are awarded as indicated above.