Case Number: BC653392 Hearing Date: May 11, 2018 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

Jose Ramirez,

Plaintiff,

v.

Toribo Baez, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC653392

Hearing Date: May 11, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Defendant’s motions to compel discovery responses

Defendant Toribo Baez (“Defendant”) has filed two motions to compel from Plaintiff Jose Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) (1) responses to Form Interrogatories (“FROG”) number 17.1; and (2) production of the documents listed in FROG 17.1(d). Defendant has also filed a third motion to deem admitted the Requests for Admissions (“RFA”), set one.

The Court notes that Defendant provides no evidence or testimony to show that any FROGs were ever served on Plaintiff. As such, Defendant’s motions to compel responses to FROG 17.1 and produce documents listed in FROG 17.1(d), are denied without prejudice. The Court cannot compel Plaintiff to respond to a discovery request that was not properly served. (CCP §§2030.290.) Defendant has failed to provide proof of service of the discovery at issue.

Defendant also moves under CCP §2033.280 to deem the RFA admitted. On September 20, 2017, Defendant served the RFA on Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s responses were due on October 25, 2017. Plaintiff’s failed to provide any response. Defense counsel provided several extensions with a final extension to December 13, 2017. As of the filing of the motions on March 2, 2018, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendant’s motions.

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. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants that party 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. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).) 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 has not filed any opposition to Defendant’s motion to deem the RFA admitted. Nor has Plaintiff otherwise demonstrated that Plaintiff has served, before the hearing on this motion, a proposed response to the RFA. Accordingly, Defendant’s unopposed motion for an order deeming the RFA admitted is granted pursuant to CCP §2033.280. Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted the truth of all matters specified in the RFA as of this date.

Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff. The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond a misuse of the discovery process. Sanctions have been sufficiently noticed against Plaintiff, but not Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court grants sanctions for 1.5 hours to prepare the motion to deem the RFA admitted and appear at the hearing, at $175.00 per hour, plus one $60

//

filing fees, for a total of $322.50. Plaintiff is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $322.50 to Defendant, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Defendant are ordered to provide notice of this order.

DATED: May 11, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court