Case Number: 17STLC02626 Hearing Date: May 16, 2018 Dept: 94

Defendant Talia Oil, Inc.’s motion to compel Plaintiff Daniel Monteon-Gonzalez to respond to form interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses, without objections, within twenty (20) days.

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for deposition on a date to be set by the Court at the hearing on this motion.

Defendant’s motion to deem requests for admissions admitted is GRANTED.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the reduced amount of $2,936, payable by Plaintiff to Defendant through his counsel within thirty (30) days.

Legal Standard

Interrogatories

Where there has been no timely response to interrogatories served under CCP § 2030.010, 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.)

The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the interrogatories, unless the court grants them 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. (CCP § 2030.290(a)(1)-(2).)

Unlike a motion to compel “further” responses, a motion to compel responses contains no meet and confer requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 765-66.)

Request for Admissions

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. (CCP § 2033.280(b).)

The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them 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. (CCP § 2033.280(a)(1)-(2).)

The court “shall” grant a motion to deem requests for admissions 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).)

Unlike a motion to compel “further” responses, a motion to deem requests for admissions admitted contains no meet and confer requirement. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762.)

Compel Deposition

CCP section 2025.450(a) states in relevant part:

If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . ., without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(CCP § 2025.450(a).) A motion to compel deposition shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (CCP § 2025.450(b)(2).) A court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion to compel is granted, unless the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or other circumstances would make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP § 2025.450(g)(1).)

Discussion

Defendant propounded form interrogatories and requests for admission on Plaintiff on February 15, 2018. (Gourjian Decl. ISO Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories ¶ 7.) When no responses were received, Defendant tried to call Plaintiff and sent two meet and confer letters. (Id. at ¶ 8-10, Exhs. B & C.) On April 17, 2018, having still not received responses, Defendant filed the instant motions.

The Court agrees Plaintiff has disobeyed the discovery statutes by failing to respond, and that Defendant’s motion is proper. Defendant’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories is therefore GRANTED. Defendant’s motion to deem requests for admissions admitted is GRANTED.

Defendant served Plaintiff with a notice of deposition on January 11, 2018. (Gourjian Decl. ISO Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories ¶ 7.) The deposition was set for January 30, 2018. (Id.) Plaintiff failed to appear on that date. (Id.) Defendant subsequently sought to meet and confer with Plaintiff by telephone and letter, but received no response. (Id. at ¶ 8-10, Exhs. B & C.) Defendant therefore now seeks to compel Plaintiff to appear for a deposition.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for deposition on a date to be set by the court at the hearing on this motion.

Sanctions

Defendant requests a total of $5,936 in sanctions. Defendant bills at a rate of $500/hour, and declares that he spent 1.5 hours preparing the motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, 1.5 hours preparing the motion to compel deposition, and 3.5 hours preparing the motion to deem RFAs admitted. He also seeks three $60 filing fees, a $256 court reporter fee, and 4.5 hours appearing at the hearing.

Pursuant to CCP § 2030.290(c), “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.” (See also CCP §§ 2025.450(g); 2033.280(b).)

Lacking any showing from Plaintiff as to whether he had substantial justification to not provide responses and not appear for deposition, the Court concludes sanctions are mandatory. However, Defendant’s requested sanctions are excessive given the nature of these unopposed motions. Accordingly, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $2,936.00, representing five hours of work total (three hours for the motions, and two for appearing at the hearing) and three $60 filing fees and $256 for the court reporter fee, for a total amount of $2,936.00.

Moving party to give notice.