Alex Magno,

Plaintiff,

v.

County of Los Angeles, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC589009

Hearing Date: March 8, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendant’S motions to compel discovery responses

This case arises out of medical malpractice which is alleged to have occurred from 2012 through July 25, 2014. Plaintiff Alex Magno (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint on July 22, 2015 against Defendants County of Los Angeles (“County”), and Does 1 through 100, alleging a single cause of action for professional negligence.

Defendant County has filed two motions to compel responses from Plaintiff for: (1) Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”), set one; and (2) Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), set one.[1] Defendant has also filed a third motion seeking an order deeming the truth of matters in Defendant’s Request for Admissions (“RFA”), set one, admitted. Defendant does not request sanctions.

On October 20, 2017, Defendant served the discovery requests on Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s verified responses were due on or before November 27, 2017. Defendant did not receive the responses and sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter on November 30, 2017 to request service of the responses without objection. Plaintiff, in pro per, contacted Defendant and stated that he never received the written discovery that Defendant had propounded on October 20, 2017. On December 8, 2017, Defendant sent copies of the previously served discovery to Plaintiff and requested that all responses be provided within 30 days, without objection. On January 9, 2018, Plaintiff served unverified response to the special interrogatories, set one, but did not provide any response at all to any of the other discovery served. (Rosenberg Decl., at ¶ 5.) On January 17, 2018, Defendant again sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff requesting verified responses, without objection, to the remining discovery items by February 1, 2018. As of the filing of these motions on February 8, 2018, Defendant has not received the remaining discovery.

Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the FROG and RPD are granted pursuant to CCP §§2030.290 and 2031.300. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses to Defendant’s form interrogatories and demand for production of documents, without objections, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Defendant also moves under CCP §2033.280 to deem the RFA admitted. Where there has been no timely response to a request for admission under CCP § 2033.010, 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 party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants that party relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).) The court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted 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).)

Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to Defendant’s motion to deem the RFA admitted. Nor has Plaintiff otherwise demonstrated that he has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the RFA. Accordingly, Defendant’s unopposed motion for an order deeming the RFA admitted is granted pursuant to CCP §2033.280. Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted the truth of all matters specified in the RFA as of this date.

Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order.

DATED: March 8, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The title of this motion states that Defendant is requesting responses to both Form and Special Interrogatories. However, the body of the motion only seeks to compel responses to the FROGs.