Lawzilla additional information: This matter was apparently continued to a later date, during which time defendant’s default was taken. The final ruling was apparently to deny the motions as moot because of defendant’s default.

Case Number: BC7100032 Hearing Date: August 28, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents (All Set One); 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 June 13, 2018, Plaintiff Afsaneh Ghadrdanzardalou (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Feliks Itskov and Yevginiy Glusker alleging negligence, negligence per se, and negligent entrustment for a vehicle collision that occurred on June 16, 2016.

On May 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed motions to compel Defendant Glusker to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) and a motion to deem the matters in Requests for Admission (Set One) to be true against Defendant Glusker. These motions were filed pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, 2031.300, and 2033.280.

Trial is set for December 13, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests that the Court compel Defendant Glusker to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents (All Set One) due to Defendant Glusker’s failure to provide timely responses.

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

Plaintiff also asks the Court to impose monetary sanctions of $7,770 against Defendant Glusker and his counsel 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.)

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

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 motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents 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), 2031.300, 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 April 8, 2019, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production, and Request for Admissions (All Set One) on Defendant Glusker by personal service. (All Three Jerry L. Johnson Declarations (“Johnson Decl.”), ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff had not received responses to the outstanding discovery as of the signing of Jerry L. Johnson’s declarations on May 22, 2019. (Johnson Decl., ¶ 4.)

The Court finds the motions are properly granted based on Defendant Glusker’s failure to provide timely responses. No opposition was filed. There is no indication that Defendant Glusker acted with substantial justification or that any circumstances exist indicating that monetary sanctions against Defendant Glusker would be unjust.

Plaintiff requests a total of $7,770 in monetary sanctions against Defendant Glusker and his counsel of record. This amount consists of $2,650 for filing the motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories (Both Set One), $2,560 for filing the motion to compel responses to Request for Production (Set One), and $2,560 for filing the motion to deem the matters within Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Defendant Glusker. (Johnson Decl., ¶ 6.) Despite the differing amounts, they consist of 3 hours in preparing the motions, 3 hours in reviewing and replying to oppositions, and 3 hours in traveling to and appearing at the hearing at a rate of $500 an hour, plus three $60.00 filing fees. (Ibid.)

The Court finds the requested amount of sanctions is unreasonable because the motions are nearly duplicative, no opposition or reply was filed, and the motions are to be heard on the same day, in the same courthouse, in the same department, consecutively. Rather, the Court finds $1,180 ($500/hr. x 2 hrs. plus three $60 filing fees) to be a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Defendant Glusker and his counsel of record, jointly and severally.

Therefore, the motions are GRANTED.

The Court orders Defendant Glusker to serve verified responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) within 30 days of this order.

The Court rules that the matters within Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (Set One) are deemed to be true against Defendant Glusker.

The Court also orders Defendant Glusker and his counsel of record to pay Plaintiff $1,180 within 30 days of this order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.