Case Number: BC716999 Hearing Date: November 25, 2019 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

craig taavon rhodes,

Plaintiff,

v.

jason daniel wimberly,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC716999

Hearing Date: November 25, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motions to compel discovery responses

Plaintiff Craig Taavon Rhodes (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel responses from Defendant Jason Daniel Wimberly (“Defendant”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”). Plaintiff moves to deem admitted specified in Requests for Admissions, Set One (“RFAs”). The motions are granted.

Plaintiff served the discovery at issue on Defendant by mail on October 25, 2018. Plaintiff granted multiple extensions of time to respond, up to September 13, 2019. As of the filing date of these motions, Plaintiff has not received responses from Defendant. Plaintiff filed no opposition to the motion, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that he has complied with his discovery obligations. Accordingly, the motions to compel responses to the RPD, FROG, and SROG are granted per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. Defendant is ordered to serve responses to Plaintiff’s RPD, FROG, and SROG, without objections, within 30 days of service of this order.

Plaintiff also moves to deem admitted the matters specified in the RFAs. Where a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, 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, as well as for a monetary sanction. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The Court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the 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).) As Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s RFA, the motion to deem admitted is granted.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in connection with the motions. The Court concludes that Defendant’s failure to respond to the discovery is an abuse of the discovery process. The Court awards sanctions against Defendant and his attorneys of record, Homan & Stone, in the amount of $1,240, which represents four hours of attorney time to prepare the motions and attend the hearing at $250 per hour, plus four filing fees.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to the RPD, FROG, and SROG are granted per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, within 30 days of notice of this order.

Defendant is deemed to have admitted the truth of all matters specified in the RFAs as of this date.

Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record, Homan & Stone, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,240 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 30 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: November 25, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court