Case Number: BC655778 Hearing Date: March 21, 2018 Dept: 32

S Visions Construction, Inc.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Rumba Room Live Anaheim, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC655778

Hearing Date: March 21, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

(1) Motion to compel responses to demand for production of documents, set one

(2) Motion to compel answers, without objections, to form interrogatories, set one

(3) Motion to compel answers, without objections, to special interrogatories, set one

(4) Motion to deem the truth of matters specified in requests for admissions set one, admitted and conclusively established

When timely responses to interrogatories are not received, “[t]he party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (CCP § 2030.290(b).)

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it. . . [t]he party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. . . . The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (CCP § 2031.300(a)–(b).)

If a party fails to provide a timely response to a request for admission, the party waives any objection to the requests. (CCP § 2033.280(a).) Moreover, “[t]he requesting 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….” (CCP § 2033.280(b).)

Plaintiff S Visions Construction, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant Rumba Room Live Anaheim, LLC (“Defendant”) to respond to requests for production, form interrogatories, and special interrogatories, and for an order deeming all matters contained its requests for admission as admitted. As set forth in the motions, Plaintiff served the disputed discovery on January 11, 2018. As of the filing of this motion, no responses have been served. Defendant does not oppose the motions to dispute this showing, or to show that responses have since been served. Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED.

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $1,410 for each motion for a total of $5,640. The Court finds this amount to be unreasonable, given the nature and complexity of the instant motions, and that the motions were unopposed. Accordingly, the Court grants sanctions of $2,000 only.