Case Number: BC651606 Hearing Date: March 14, 2018 Dept: 97

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 97

Shabbir Rizvi,

Plaintiff,

v.

Yoram Partush, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC651606

Hearing Date: March 14, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendant’S motions to compel discovery responses

Defendants Sharon Partush and Yoram Partush (“Defendants”) have filed three motions to compel responses from Plaintiff Shabbir Rizvi (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”), set one; (2) Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), set one; and (3) Special Interrogatories (“SROG”), set one. Defendants also filed a fourth motion to deem admitted the Requests for Admissions (“RFA”), set one.

On November 3, 2017, Defendant served the discovery requests on Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s discovery responses were due on December 8, 2017. Defense counsel granted an extension to December 29, 2017 to respond. When Defendants received no responses, Defendants again extended the deadline to January 12, 2018. On January 22, 2018, defense counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff to attempt to resolve this situation informally. As of the filing of the motions on February 8, 2018, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to any of Defendant’s motions.

Defendants’ motions to compel responses to the RPD, FROG, and SROG are granted pursuant to CCP §§2030.290 and 2031.300. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to Defendants’ form interrogatories, special interrogatories and request for production of documents, without objections, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Defendants also move under CCP §2033.280 to deem the RFA admitted. 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 Defendants’ motion to deem the RFA admitted. Nor has Plaintiff otherwise demonstrated that Plaintiff has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the RFA. Accordingly, Defendants’ 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.

Defendants request sanctions against Plaintiff. The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond a misuse of the discovery process. Sanctions have been sufficiently noticed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court grants sanctions for 3.5 hours to prepare the four motions and appear at the hearing, at $200.00 per hour, plus four $60 filing fees, for a total of $940.00. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $940.00 to Defendants, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Defendants are ordered to provide notice of this order.

DATED: March 14, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court