Case Number: EC060824    Hearing Date: August 01, 2014    Dept: A

Great Plains Capital Corp. v Calf Furniture

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY ORDERS

Calendar: 5
Case No: EC060824
Date: 8/1/14

MP: Plaintiff, Great Plains Capital Corp.
RP: Defendant, Kil Soo Chung

RELIEF REQUESTED:
1. Order compelling the Defendant to serve responses to the Plaintiff’s form interrogatories.
2. Order compelling the Defendant to serve responses to the Plaintiff’s requests for production.
3. Order deeming Defendant to have admitted the Plaintiff’s requests for admissions.
4. Order imposing monetary sanctions of $1,747.50 on the Defendant.

CHRONOLOGY:
Discovery Served: May 21, 2014
Responses Served: None

DISCUSSION:
This case arises from the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendants breached an agreement to repay a bank loan.
Trial is set for December 22, 2014.

At this hearing, the Plaintiff seeks discovery orders regarding the discovery served on the Defendant, Kil Soo Chung, on May 21, 2014. The motion is improper because the Plaintiff seeks several types of discovery order in one motion, i.e., an order under CCP section 2030.290 to compel responses to interrogatories, an order under CCP section 2031.300 to compel responses to requests for production, and an order under CCP section 2033.280 to deem requests for admissions admitted.
Accordingly, the Court could deny the Plaintiff’s motion because it improperly seeks several different discovery orders in a single motion for relief.

However, if the Court will overlook this procedural defect in light of the pending trial date.

The Plaintiff’s attorney, Martina Porter, provides facts in her declaration to demonstrate that the Defendant did not serve any responses to the Plaintiff’s form interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission.
Under CCP sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, the Court may order a party to serve responses when the party has failed to serve any responses to interrogatories and requests for production. In addition, under CCP sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, when a party fails to serve timely responses, the party waives all objections to the interrogatories and requests for production. Since the Defendant failed to serve any responses to the Plaintiff’s form interrogatories and requests for production, the Court will order the Defendant to serve responses without objections.
In addition, under CCP section 2033.280, the Court may order that a party is deemed to have admitted requests for admissions when the party has failed to serve any responses. Since the Defendant has failed to serve any responses to the Plaintiff’s requests for admissions, the Court will order that the Defendant is deemed to have admitted the Plaintiff’s requests for admissions.

Finally, the Plaintiff requests that the Court impose monetary sanctions of $1,747.50 be imposed on the Defendant. Under CCP sections 2030.290, 2031.300, and 2033.280 the Court may impose monetary sanctions upon the Defendant for the reasonable expenses incurred as a result of his failure to comply with discovery.
A review of the declaration of the Plaintiff’s attorney, Martina Rider, reveals that she states that she expects to bill 7.5 hours at $225 per hour on this matter and that the filing fee was $60. The Court will reduce the number of hours to 4 hours because this is a reasonable amount of time to spend on a standard discovery motion. Accordingly, the amount of monetary sanctions is $960 (4 hours at $225 per hour + $60 filing fee).

RULING:

1. ORDER the Defendant to serve responses to the Plaintiff’s form interrogatories without objection within twenty days;
2. ORDER the Defendant to serve responses to the Plaintiff’s requests for production without objection within twenty days;
3. DEEM Defendant to have admitted the Plaintiff’s requests for admissions.
4. IMPOSE monetary sanctions in the amount of $960.00 to be paid to plaintiff’s counsel within thirty days.