Case Number: BC662206 Hearing Date: May 01, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Zoe Otedola

RESPONDING PARTY: None

As to plaintiff Annette Rubin:

(1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories

(2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories

(3) Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production

(4) Motion to Have Requests for Admission Deeming Matters Admitted

As to plaintiff Jonah Rubin:

(5) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories

(6) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories

(7) Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production

(8) Motion to Have Requests for Admission Deeming Matters Admitted

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

On May 23, 2017, plaintiff Annette Rubin and Jonah Rubin, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Stuart Rubin, filed a complaint against defendant Zoe Otedola for negligence and negligence per se based on a motor vehicle accident that occurred on March 4, 2016.

On April 12, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs’ counsel’s motions to be relieved as counsel.

On April 16, 2018, plaintiffs’ counsel filed the proofs of service of the orders to be relieved.

Trial is set for November 26, 2018.

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

Defendant Zoe Otedola requests that the court compel plaintiffs to serve responses to defendant’s first sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand for production of documents, and to deem admitted the matters in the request for admissions.

Defendant served the discovery requests on July 21, 2017. Defendant contends that responses were due on October 27, 2017 after defense counsel granted three extensions of time to respond. On October 27, 2017, defense counsel received unverified responses. On February 26, 2018, defense counsel sent a letter to plaintiff’s counsel requesting responses by March 9, 2018. On March 9, 2018, defense counsel received an email from plaintiff’s counsel requesting additional time. Defense counsel gave a further extension to March 15, 2018. To date, defense counsel has not received responses.

Because defendant properly served her discovery requests and plaintiffs failed to serve responses, the motions are GRANTED.

Under Code of Civil Procedure § 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 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.” CCP §§ 2030.290(c); 2031.300(c).

It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated a motion to deem them admitted. CCP § 2033.280(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.”

Defendant requests sanctions against plaintiffs in the amount of $560 for each motion. The court finds that $440 ($100/hr. x 2 hrs. plus $240 in filing fees) is a reasonable amount to be imposed against each plaintiff for all four motions.

The court ORDERS:

Plaintiffs Annette Rubin and Jonah Rubin, by and through his guardian ad litem, Stuart Rubin, are ordered to serve on defendant verified responses without objections to defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 30 days.

Plaintiffs Annette Rubin and Jonah Rubin, by and through his guardian ad litem, Stuart Rubin, are ordered (1) to serve on defendant a verified response without objections to defendant’s Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, and (2) to produce all documents and things in their possession, custody, or control, which are responsive to defendant’s demand, within 30 days.

The court deems admitted the matters in defendant’s Request for Admissions, Set One.

The court orders that each plaintiff is to pay to defendant a monetary sanction in the amount of $440 within 30 days.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 1, 2018

_____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court