Case Number: BC612338 Hearing Date: June 13, 2018 Dept: 7

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND DEEM ADMITTED; MOTION GRANTED

On March 1, 2016, Plaintiffs Eulalia Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) and Marcos Cortez filed this action against Defendants Sae Takada (“Defendant”) and Yoshi Takada for motor vehicle and general negligence and negligence per se relating to an October 21, 2014 two-vehicle accident.

On January 12, 2018, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Matthew J. Deenihan, ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Plaintiff served no responses and defense counsel sent two meet and confer letters. (Deenihan Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.) Defendant moves to compel responses and to deem admitted requests for admissions.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding 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. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).)

The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “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 of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff filed no opposition to this Motion and it is undisputed Plaintiff failed to serve timely responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions. It does not appear Plaintiff served any proposed responses in substantial compliance prior to this hearing.

Accordingly, the Motions to compel and deem admitted are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) “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 of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Monetary sanctions are GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiff and counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $900.00 for four hours preparing these unopposed motions and attending the hearing at defense counsel’s rate of $165.00 per hour, and $240.00 in filing fees, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.