Case Number: BC648596 Hearing Date: January 08, 2019 Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND TO DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS; GRANTED

On February 9, 2017, Plaintiff Anthony Woods (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, and Debbie Walker (“Defendant”) for general and motor vehicle negligence relating to a February 29, 2016 collision. Plaintiff moves to compel Walker’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and to deem admitted Requests for Admissions, or alternatively, to compel responses to Requests for Admissions. Three motions are set to be heard on January 8, 2019 and one motion is set to be heard on January 9, 2019. The Court rules on all four motions on this date and the January 9, 2019 hearing is taken off calendar.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the requests, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

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 Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

On March 19, 2018, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions. (Declaration of Luis Montoya, ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Plaintiff received no responses and no requests for extension. (Montoya Decl., ¶ 3.)

Defense counsel states that on information and belief, an extension was granted by Plaintiff’s counsel and he served responses on or about May 21, 2018. However, defense counsel states that due to a filing error, the served versions were not maintained. Defendant served responses on December 19, 2018, prior to the filing of Defendant’s oppositions to these Motions. (Declaration of J. Pat Ferraris, ¶ 3.) Defense counsel states that prior to the filing of these motions to compel, the parties discussed resolution of this case and no mention was made that discovery responses were still outstanding. Further, no attempt at Informal Discovery Conference were made. (Ferraris Decl., ¶ 4.) Defense counsel states a simple phone call or email would have resolved the issue. (Ferraris Decl., ¶ 5.)

In reply, Plaintiff’s counsel notes there is no proof of service for responses served in May 2018, and his office received no responses until December 2018, after these Motions were already filed. (Declaration of Babak Kheiri, ¶ 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that after these Motions were filed, he requested the documents on December 14, 2018. It then took defense counsel five days to produce responses and an additional day to email verifications. (Kheiri Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff argues that although responses have been served, Defendant still asserts objections, which is improper because responses were untimely. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions.

Having reviewed the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court finds Defendant failed to serve timely verified responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Defendant contends that an extension on responses was granted until May. However, Plaintiff’s counsel states no requests for extensions were made, and defense counsel provides no evidence that an extension was granted. Nor does defendant provide evidence, such as a proof of service, that responses were served in May 2018. Regardless, without evidence that an extension was granted, these responses, even if served in May, were untimely. Accordingly, Defendant waived all objections.

Since responses in substantial compliance have been served, the motion to deem admitted requests for admissions is denied, but the Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses without objection.

Plaintiff’s Motions to compel are GRANTED and Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

The Court notes that only three filing fees were paid for these motions to compel form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for documents, and requests for admissions, which should have been filed as four separate motions and four filing fees paid. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the additional filing fee and to bring proof of payment to the hearing on these Motions. If the additional filing fee is not paid, the hearing will be continued so that payment may be made.

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Defendant and defense counsel, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $1,740.00 for five hours at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $300.00, $180.00 for the filing fees already paid, and $60.00 for the additional filing fee ordered to be paid, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.