Case Number: BC698596 Hearing Date: May 23, 2019 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

arthyr danielyan,

Plaintiff,

v.

bassam rezaeipour,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC698596

Hearing Date: May 22, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to compel discovery responses AND MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED

Plaintiff Arthyr Danielyan (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel responses from Defendant Bassam Rezaeipour (“Defendant”) to Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”), set one. Plaintiff also moves to deem the matters specified in the Request for Admissions (“RFAs”) to have been admitted.

Plaintiff served the RPD and RFAs on Defendant by mail on January 8, 2019. Plaintiff granted Defendant an extension of time to respond to March 21, 2019. Plaintiff filed the motions on March 27, 2019.

Defendant filed oppositions on May 8, 2019. Defendant represents that he has now served responses to the RPD and the RFAs. Defendant concedes, however, that Defendant’s responses to the RPD contain objections. (Opposition, p. 5.) Because Defendant failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s RPD, Defendant waived all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Defendant’s untimely responses are thus legally invalid, and do not moot the motion to compel. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-411.) Accordingly, the motion to compel is granted. Defendant is to serve responses to Plaintiff’s RPD, without objections, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

However, the motion to deem the matters specified in the RFAs is denied. Where a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, 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 court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the 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).) As Defendant has now served responses, the motion is moot except as to sanctions.

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and counsel-of-record. In his opposition, Defendant’s counsel stipulates to sanctions against counsel, but not Defendant, in the amount of $620. The Court agrees that the failure to respond to discovery is an abuse warranting sanctions, but the Court accepts Defendant’s counsel’s stipulation. The Court orders Defendant’s counsel-of-record to pay sanctions in the amount of $500 plus two filing fees of $60 each.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The motion to compel is granted. Defendant is to serve responses to Plaintiff’s RPD, without objections, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant’s counsel-of-record (but not Defendant) is ordered to pay $620 in sanctions within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: May 22, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court