Case Number: BC641578 Hearing Date: April 17, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Alexander Pak

RESPONDING PARTY: None

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions

NOTE: Moving party should have filed separate motions for each of the above requests. He is ordered to pay an additional $120 ($60 for two additional motions) prior to the hearing on this matter. Also, to decrease the amount of time expended on this matter, either party may participate via CourtCall.

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

On December 8, 2016, Plaintiff Alexander Pak filed the instant complaint against Defendant Almayo Chateau Homeowners Association and Allstate HOA Management, alleging that he was using a ladder on their property, for which they were responsible, which broke beneath him, causing injury. On April 18, 2017, Almayo Chateau filed a cross-complaint for indemnity, negligent hiring, and fraud against Cross-Defendant First American Home Warranty Corporation. On September 1, 2017, the cross-complaint was amended to include Cross-Defendant West Coast Chief Repair, Inc.

LEGAL STANDARD

Interrogatories

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. CCP §2030.290(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.

Request for Production of Documents

Where there has been no timely response to a CCP §2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. CCP §2031.300. Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. 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. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, ¶ 8:1487.

Request for Admissions

Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(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). “Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions. Rather, the propounder of the RFA must ‘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 § 2023.010 et seq.” Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶ 8:1370, citing CCP § 2033.280(b). The court “shall” grant the motion to deem RFA 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.” CCP § 2033.280(c).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests that the court compel Cross-Defendant West Coast Chief Repair, Inc., to serve responses without objections to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests. Plaintiff propounded discovery requests on January 2, 2018. Khorshidi Decl., ¶2, Exhs. A-D. Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer regarding the lack of responses on February 9 and February 20. Khorshidi Decl., ¶3, Exhs. E-F. No responses have been received as of February 27, 2018. Khorshidi Decl., ¶2, 4.

Because Plaintiff properly served discovery requests and Cross-Defendant failed to serve verified responses, the motions are GRANTED.

Under CCP §2023.030(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.” Under CCP §2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, requests for admissions, 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.” CCP §§2030.290(c); 2031.300(c); 2033.290(c).

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(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.”

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Cross-Defendant and its counsel of record in the amount of $4,610. The court finds that $930 ($250 x 3 hrs. = $750, plus filing fees of $180) is a reasonable amount for the above motions.

Pursuant to CCP §2030.290 and §2033.280, Cross-Defendant West Coast Chief Repair, Inc., is ordered to serve on Plaintiff Alexander Pak verified responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions, which comply with CCP §§2030.220 and 2030.250(a) and (b), and §§2033.210 and 2033.240(a) and (b), within 20 days.

Pursuant to CCP §2031.300, Cross-Defendant West Coast Chief Repair, Inc., is ordered to (1) serve on Plaintiff Alexander Pak verified responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Demand for Inspection of Documents, which comply with CCP §§2031.210-2031.250, and (2) to produce all documents and things in Cross-Defendant’s possession, custody, or control that are responsive to Plaintiff’s Demand for Inspection of Documents within 20 days.

The court orders Cross-Defendant West Coast Chief Repair, Inc., and its attorney of record, John L. Setchell, to pay to Plaintiff Alexander Pak a monetary sanction in the amount of $930 in total within 30 days.

Moving plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 17, 2018