Lawzilla Additional Information: This motion was apparently taken off calendar and no filing ruling was made. The case was dismissed a few days later.

Case Number: BC696931 Hearing Date: August 21, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two); Motion to Deem Matters in Request for Admissions (Set One) as True

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On March 9, 2018, Plaintiff Gi Hyun Lee (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Oscar Fernando Velasquez (“Defendant”) alleging motor vehicle negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on January 23, 2017.

On July 3, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories (Set Two) and a motion to deem the matters in Requests for Admission (Set One) to be true against Plaintiff.

Trial is set for October 29, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests that the Court compel Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories (Set Two) within 20 days of the hearing on this motion due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide timely responses.

Defendant also requests that the Court deem the matters within Requests for Admission (Set One) as true against Plaintiff due to his failure to provide timely responses.

Defendant also asks the Court to impose monetary sanctions of $935 against Plaintiff and his attorney of record for their abuse of the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

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, subd. (b).) 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.)

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

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).)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and a motion to compel responses to interrogatories against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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), 2033.280, subd. (c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “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.”

DISCUSSION

On February 25, 2019, Defendant served Form Interrogatories (Set Two) and Request for Admissions (Set One) on Plaintiff by U.S. Mail. (Both Mary Margaryan Declarations (“Margaryan Decl.”), ¶ 3, Exh. A, D.) On April 12, 2019, Defendant emailed the propounded discovery in response to Plaintiff’s statement that the propounded discovery was never received. (Margaryan Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.) Defendant has not received responses as of the signing of Mary Margaryan’s declarations on July 2, 2019. (Margaryan Decl., ¶¶ 6, 8.)

The Court finds the motions are properly granted. Plaintiff has not opposed these motions. The Court finds there to be no substantial justification or that any other circumstances indicate the imposition of monetary sanctions would be unjust.

Defendant’s request of $935 in monetary sanctions consists of 3 hours in drafting the moving papers and 2 hours in traveling to and appearing at the hearing at a rate of $175 an hour, plus a $60 filing fee. (Margaryan Decl., ¶ 7.) The Court finds this to be a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Plaintiff and his counsel of record for this abuse of the discovery process.

Therefore, the motions are GRANTED.

The Court orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to Moving Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set Two) within 30 days of this order.

The Court deems the matters within Defendant’s Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Plaintiff.

The Court also orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record to pay Defendant $935 within 30 days of this order, jointly and severally.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.