2016-00204137-CU-OR

Three Oaks Properties, LLC vs. Khadra Mahmoud Awad Ebeni

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1) Form 2) Special 3) Admissions 4) Production

Filed By: Shoff, Michael L.

Plaintiff Three Oaks Property, LLC’s Motion to Compel Verified Responses from defendant to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production is unopposed and is granted. Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Deeming Requests for Admission admitted is denied.

Defendant failed to comply with the above discovery in a timely manner. After this motion was filed, defendant filed a “non-opposition” to the motion. Thereafter, defendant served responses to the discovery. However, service of responses after a hearing does not moot the motion. Defendant is entitled to verified responses, without objections.

Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, to the Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production no later than March 12, 2018.

As to the Requests for Admission, the Court finds that the responses substantially complied with CCP 2033.220, such that the Court will not deem them admitted. However, plaintiff may move to compel further responses to the requests for admission to be given without the preceding general objections.

Sanctions are denied as to the Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production because the motion was unopposed. Sanctions are denied because the motion was not opposed. Although CRC 3.1348(a) purports to authorize sanctions if a motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery (CCP 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c)) authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing sanctions under the CRC must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions. Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v Firmaterr Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355. However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.

As for the requests for admissions, CCP 2033.280(c) requires that sanctions be awarded even though the motion is not opposed. Sanctions in the reasonable amount of $660 are ordered to be paid to plaintiff by defendant because the failure to provide timely responses necessitated this motion.