Case Number: BC687802 Hearing Date: August 21, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents (All Set One); Motion to Deem Matters in Request for Admissions (Set One) as True

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On December 21, 2019, Plaintiff West Moore (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging negligence and premises liability for a box that fell on Plaintiff on December 24, 2015.

On May 16, 2019, Defendant filed motions to compel Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) and a motion to deem the matters in Requests for Admission (Set One) as true against Plaintiff. These motions were filed pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, 2031.300, and 2033.280.

Trial is set for December 26, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests that the Court compel Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents (All Set One) within 20 days of the hearing on these motions due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide timely responses.

Defendant also requests that the Court deem the matters within Requests for Admission (Set One) to be true against Plaintiff because of his failure to provide timely responses.

Defendant also asks the Court to impose monetary sanctions of $2,640 against Plaintiff for Plaintiff’s abuse of the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (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.)

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).) 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.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (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).” The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (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.”

DISCUSSION

On February 28, 2019, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production, and Request for Admissions (All Set One) on Plaintiff by overnight mail. (All Four Silvia E. Luna Declarations (“Luna Decl.”), ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Defendant granted two extensions for Plaintiff to serve the outstanding responses, resulting in an ultimate deadline of May 9, 2019. (Luna Decl., ¶¶ 6, 8, Exh. C, E.) Defendant had not received responses to the outstanding discovery as of the signing of Silvia E. Luna’s declarations on May 15, 2019. (Luna Decl., ¶ 9.)

The Court finds the motions are properly granted due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide timely responses. No opposition was filed. There is no indication that Plaintiff acted with a substantial justification or that any circumstance exists indicating monetary sanctions against Plaintiff would be unjust.

Defendant’s request of $2,640 in monetary sanctions consists of 4 hours in preparing the moving papers and 8 hours in attending the hearings and replying to any opposition at a rate of $200 an hour, plus four $60 filing fees. (Luna Decl., ¶ 10.) The Court finds this amount of sanctions to be unreasonable because the four motions are largely duplicative, no opposition or reply was filed, and the hearings will be held in the same courthouse, on the same day, in the same department, and concurrently. Rather, the Court finds $1,440 ($200/hr. x 6 hrs. plus four $60 filing fees) to be a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, jointly and severally, for their abuse of the discovery process.

Therefore, the motions are GRANTED.

The Court orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) within 30 days of this order.

The Court deems the matters within Defendant’s Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Plaintiff.

The Court also orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record to pay Defendant $1,440 within 30 days of this order.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.