Case Number: BC649815 Hearing Date: May 11, 2018 Dept: 7

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND DEEM ADMITTED AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; MOTION GRANTED

On February 9, 2017, Plaintiff James Katsouridis (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (“Defendant”) for negligence and strict liability. On February 16, 2018, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Set Three and Request for Admissions, Set Two on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Kevin T. Dunbar, ¶ 1.) Plaintiff failed to serve any responses or to request an extension. (Dunbar Decl., ¶ 2.) On March 26, 2018, defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter, but to date, Plaintiff has not served responses or communicated with defense counsel. (Dunbar Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff’s responses, to deem admitted requests for admissions, and to impose monetary sanctions.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, 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. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted 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).)

Plaintiff filed no opposition to these Motions and it is undisputed that he failed to serve timely, verified responses to Defendant’s discovery requests. Accordingly, the Motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to outstanding discovery is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objection, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Three, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

It does not appear that Plaintiff served responses proposed responses in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220 prior to this hearing. The Motion to deem admitted requests for admissions is GRANTED.

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay $705.00 to defense counsel, for two hours preparing these unopposed motions and one hour attending the hearing at defense counsel’s rate of $195.00 per hour, and $120.00 filing fees, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.