Case Number: BC514662 Hearing Date: April 18, 2014 Dept: 32

CASE NAME: Elsagav Shaham v. Mary Der Parseghian, et al.
CASE NO.: BC514662
HEARING DATE: 04/18/14
DEPARTMENT: 32
SUBJECT: (1) Motion to Compel Response to First Set of Form Interrogatories and Request for Imposition of Sanctions
(2) Motion to Compel Response to First Set of Demands for Production and Request for Imposition of Sanctions
(3) Motion to Deem as Admitted Requests for Admission
MOVING PARTY: (1)-(3) Defendant Alireza Taheripour
RESP. PARTY: (1)-(2) None; (3) Plaintiff Elsagav Shaham, in pro per

TENTATIVE RULING

Motion to Compel Response to First Set of Form Interrogatories MOOT.

Motion to Compel Response to First Set of Demands for Production MOOT.

Motion to Deem as Admitted Requests for Admission DENIED.

Request for Monetary Sanctions, for all three motions combined, GRANTED in the reduced amount of $3,155 ($2,335 for RFA motion + $410 + $410 for FI and RFP motions.)

ANALYSIS

When timely responses to interrogatories are not received, “[t]he party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (CCP § 2030.290(b).) If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production and inspection of documents, “the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the inspection demand.” (CCP § 2031.300(b).)

If a party fails to provide a timely response to a request for admission, “[t]he requesting 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….” (CCP § 2033.280(b).) Generally, the Court must grant such a request “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.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).)

In support of the motions, Defendant submits evidence that she served the first sets of FIs, RFPs, and RFAs on Plaintiff by mail on September 4, 2013. (House Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant submits evidence that, as of October 24, 2013, Plaintiff had not served any responses. (Id. ¶ 4.)

In opposition to the motion to deem RFAs admitted, Plaintiff states in a declaration that he has “responded to all of defendant Taheripour’s discovery, with more than 1000 pages of responses, including supplemental responses and including identification of thousands of pages of documents, without objection, except for pleadings that are readily obtainable with the court.” (Shaham Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff did not attach any copies of responses to the FIs, RFPs, or RFAs to his declaration.

In reply, Defendant concedes that Plaintiff has served responses and then supplemental responses to the FIs, RFPs, and RFAs. (Reply 2:12-17.) Defendant contends that the responses are deficient, but does not provide the reasons the responses are deficient. Defendant states that the responses “partially obviate the motions,” but that sanctions should still be awarded. (Reply 3:24-27.) Based on the statements made in the reply brief, it appears that the motion is moot insofar as it seeks to compel responses from Plaintiff. Also, since Defendant has not argued that the responses and supplemental responses to the RFAs are not in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220, the motion to deem RFAs admitted is denied.

However, monetary sanctions are warranted against Plaintiff for failing to provide timely responses to the FIs, RFPs, and RFAs. Although Plaintiff claims that he was busy responding to Defendants’ demurrers (Shaham Decl. ¶¶ 2-4), that is not a sufficient basis to excuse his discovery obligations. Defendant’s request for $410 for each of the motions to compel responses to FIs and RFPs is reasonable. Defendant’s request for $2,335 for the motion to deem RFAs admitted is also reasonable. Accordingly, the Court imposes total monetary sanctions for all three motions combined of $3,155.00.