Case Number: 18STCV07550 Hearing Date: November 27, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production (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 December 3, 2018, Plaintiff Antonio Rodriguez Montoya (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Luis Felipe Maldanado (“Defendant”) alleging motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on December 9, 2017.

On October 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed motions to compel Plaintiff 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 Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Defendant. These motions were filed pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, 2031.300, and 2033.280.

Trial is set for June 1, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendant to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) based on Defendant’s failure to provide timely verified responses.

Plaintiff also asks the Court to deem the matters within Requests for Admissions (Set One) as true against Defendant because of Defendant’s failure to provide timely verified responses.

Plaintiff further asks the Court to impose monetary sanctions of $10,740 against Defendant 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. (See 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.

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).)

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.)

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 July 17, 2019, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production, and Request for Admission (All Set One) on Defendant by U.S. mail. (All Four Declarations of Soheil Bahari (“Bahari Decl.”), ¶¶ 3, 7, Exh. 1.) Plaintiff granted one extension to provide verified responses by September 11, 2019. (Bahari Decl., ¶¶ 4, 8, Exh. B.) Defendant failed to serve the outstanding discovery. (Bahari Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.)

The motions are therefore properly granted because the underlying discovery was served on Defendant and Defendant failed to provide timely responses. There are no facts showing that Defendant acted with a substantial justification or that other circumstances would make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

Plaintiff’s request for $10,740 in sanctions consists of nine hours in drafting the moving papers, three hours in drafting the replying papers, and six hours in appearing at the hearings at a rate of $500 an hour, plus three $60 filing fees. The Court finds this to be unreasonable. The moving papers are straight-forward and nearly duplicative. An entry-level associate could and should have drafted these documents. No replies were filed. And the hearings are to take place in the same courthouse, in the same department, on the same date, consecutively. Rather, the Court finds $980 ($200/hr. x 4 hrs. plus three $60 filing fees) to be a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Defendant and his counsel of record for their abuse of the discovery process.

Therefore, the motions are GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (Set One) within 20 days of this ruling.

The Court deems the matters within Plaintiff’s Requesst for Admissions (Set One) to be true against Defendant.

Defendant and his counsel of record are ordered to pay Plaintiff $980, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.