Case Number: BC715764 Hearing Date: April 24, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motions to Compel Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents (All Set One); Motion to Deem Truth of Request for Admissions (Set One)

The court considered the moving and opposing papers. No reply was filed.

BACKGROUND

On July 30, 2018, plaintiff Yanet Garrido Cruz (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against defendants Rafael Valadez and Lilia Valadez (“Defendants”) alleging motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and negligence per se for a rear-end automobile collision that occurred on July 30, 2016.

Trial is set for January 30, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests the court for an order compelling defendant Lilia Valdez to provide verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s: (1) Form Interrogatories, (2) Special Interrogatories, and (3) Request for Production of Documents (All Set One).

Plaintiff also requests the court for an order deeming the truth of all matters specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against defendant Lilia Valdez.

Plaintiff further requests monetary sanctions for $4,146.60, in total, against defendant Lilia Valdez and her counsel, jointly and severally. This amount consists of $1,036.65 for bringing each of the four motions.

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 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).)

DISCUSSION

On October 1, 2018, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Demand for Production of Documents, and Request for Admissions (All Set One) to defendant Lilia Valdez. (See All Declarations of Gerardo Moreno Jr., Esq. (“Moreno Decl.”), ¶ 3, Exh 1.) On November 5, 2018, Plaintiff granted defendant Lilia Valdez an extension to respond to outstanding discovery, which expired on December 5, 2018. (Moreno Decl., ¶ 4, Exh 2.) On January 29, 2019 and February 26, 2019, Plaintiff met and conferred with defendant Lilia Valdez regarding the outstanding discovery, providing defendant Lilia Valdez until February 8, 2019 to provide the necessary responses. (Moreno Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. 3-4.) Plaintiff had not received defendant Lilia Valdez’s responses to outstanding discovery as of the time of signing Gerardo Moreno Jr., Esq.’s declaration. (Moreno Decl., ¶ 6.)

Defendant Lilia Valdez argues that the motions should be denied as defendant Lilia Valdez has been sent the drafted responses to outstanding discovery for review and verification and that the responses will have been served by the time of the hearing. (Opposition, p. 2:3-2:13.) Defendant Lilia Valdez’s counsel, James H. Goldman, declares that he was only recently able to establish contact with Defendant Lilia Valdez after conducting internet searches, seeking assistance from the insurance carrier, and retaining an investigator. (Goldman Decl., ¶ 3.)

Saliently, defendant Lilia Valdez does not claim that service of the discovery was improper. The fact remains that defendant Lilia Valdez did not respond to discovery within a timely matter. Additionally, defendant Lilia Valdez’s argument that discovery will have been served before the hearing on these motions does not necessitate a denial of the motions. Rather, defendant Lilia Valdez has yet to provide code-compliant responses.

Plaintiff requests a total of $4,146.60 in monetary sanctions for preparing and filing the motions and appearing at the hearings. (Moreno Decl., ¶ 8.) The court finds the fact that Defendants’ counsel could not establish a contact with defendant Lilia Valdez as an insufficient justification for their misuse of the discovery process. This is because no additional extensions were requested from Plaintiff outside the first request in order to provide timely discovery responses. The court finds $1,440.00 ($200.00/hr. x 6 hrs. plus four $60.00 filing fees) to be a reasonable amount of monetary sanctions to be imposed against defendant Lilia Valdez and her counsel, jointly and severally, for these four motions.

Plaintiff’s motions are GRANTED.

The court orders defendant Lilia Valdez to provide verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents (All Set One) within 30 days of this order.

The court also orders the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (Set One) to be deemed admitted against defendant Lilia Valdez.

The court further orders defendant Lilia Valdez and her counsel of record to pay Plaintiff $1,440.00, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this order.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling