Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records plaintiff is represented by attorney David Azizi who is being sanctioned by the judge.

Case Number: BC672925 Hearing Date: May 09, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Los Angeles County MTA

RESPONDING PARTY: None

(1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One)

(2) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One)

(3) Motion that Request for Admissions Be Deemed Admitted

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

On August 18, 2017, plaintiff Saeed Novel filed a complaint against defendant Los Angeles County MTA and Doe Bus Driver for motor vehicle negligence based on an incident that occurred on May 3, 2017.

Trial is set for February 19, 2019.

LEGAL STANDARD

Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, 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.

Request for Production of Documents

Where there has been no timely response to a CCP § 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. CCP § 2031.300. Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, ¶ 8:1487.

Request for Admissions

Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(b), a 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 under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). “Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions. Rather, the propounder of the RFA must ‘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’ under §

2023.010 et seq.” Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶ 8:1370, citing CCP § 2033.280(b). The court “shall” grant the motion to deem RFA 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).

DISCUSSION

Defendant LA County MTA requests that the court compel plaintiff to serve responses to defendant’s form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents, and to deem admitted the matters in the request for admissions.

Defendant served its discovery requests on September 22, 2017. Responses were due by October 27, 2017. On January 19, 2018, defense counsel received a letter from plaintiff’s counsel confirming an extension to February 2, 2018. To date, defense counsel has not received responses.

Because defendant properly served its discovery requests and plaintiff failed to serve responses, the motions are GRANTED.

Under CCP § 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney

who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP §§ 2030.290(c); 2031.300(c).

It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated a motion to deem them admitted. CCP § 2033.280(c).

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) states, “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

Defendant requests monetary sanctions against plaintiff and his attorneys in the amount of $720 for each of the motions to compel. Defendant has not requested sanctions with respect to the motion to deem matters admitted. The court finds $360 ($180/hr. x 2 hrs.) to be a reasonable amount to be imposed against plaintiff and his attorney of record in total for both motions to compel.

The court ORDERS:

Plaintiff Saeed Novel is ordered to serve on defendant verified responses without objections to defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days.

Plaintiff Novel is ordered (1) to serve on defendant a verified response without objections to defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and (2) to produce all documents and things in his possession, custody, or control, which are responsive to defendant’s request, within 20 days.

The court deems admitted the matters in defendant’s Request for Admissions, Set One.

Plaintiff Saeed Novel and his attorney of record, Law Offices of David Azizi, are ordered to pay a monetary sanction to defendant in the amount of $360 within 30 days, in total.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 9, 2018

_____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court