2016-00199813-CU-WT

Jamileff Haywood vs. Twin Rivers Unified School District

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Request for Admissions

Filed By: Cohen, Eliezer

Plaintiff Jamileef Haywood’s motion to compel Defendant Twin Rivers Unified School District’s further responses to request for admissions is granted.

Defendant filed essentially a one page “statement in lieu of opposition” indicating that the motion is moot as it has amended the responses. However, there is no declaration showing that responses were actually served. In any event, service of responses after the motion was filed does not moot the motion. Plaintiff is still entitled to an order. To be clear, a motion is “made” when it is filed and served. (CCP § 1005.5.) The Court expresses no opinion regarding the sufficiency of any further responses.

No later than March 7, 2018, Defendant Twin Rivers Unified School District shall serve further verified responses to Plaintiff’s request for admissions (set one) as requested in the moving papers. To the extent the further responses served after the motion was filed comply with this order they need not be re-served.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied as the motion was unopposed on the merits. Although California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 purports to authorize sanctions if the motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing sanctions under the C.R.C. must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions. Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v. Firmaterr, Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355. However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.