On February 28, 2025, Defendant Hill filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to discovery. 

Trial is currently set for May 27, 2025.  

Instant Pleading 

Defendant Hill moves to continue trial by 120 days. 

Defendant Hill moves to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission. 

Decision 

The motion to continue trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to September 8, 2025 and Final Status Conference is set on August 26, 2025. Discovery and other trial related dates are to track with the new trial date. 

Hill’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to interrogatories and requests for production are GRANTED. The Court awards Hill sanctions for three hours of attorney time at a rate of $235 per hour plus four three filing fees for a total of $885. Plaintiff Ziad Ghandour is ordered to pay Defendant Hill Engineering & Construction these sanctions within 30 days of this order. 

Hill’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to requests for admissions is DENIED. 

Hill is ordered to pay two additional filing fees to the Court for a total of $120 within 10 days of this order. 

Discussion 

Hill filed an improper omnibus motion compelling responses to interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production. Hill was required to file each motion separately and pay a separate filing fee for each motion. (Gov. Code, section 70617(f).) Hill must pay two additional filing fees to the Court for a total of $120.¿ 

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., section 2030.290, subd. (b).)  

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., section 2031.300, subd. (b).) 

Where there has been no timely response to requests for admissions, a “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 under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).”  (Code Civ. Proc., section 2033.280(c).) 

Sanctions may be imposed for misuse of discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2023.030, subd. (a). ) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2023.010, subd. (d).) Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 provides that a court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery even if no opposition was filed.  

Analysis 

Hill moves to compel Plaintiff’s responses to interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission. Hill’s counsel testifies that after he served discovery requests on Plaintiff, Plaintiff failed to serve responses and failed to respond to counsel’s communications. (Colon Decl., ¶¶4-8.) 

Because Plaintiff has not responded to Hill’s discovery requests, Hill’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to interrogatories and requests for production are GRANTED. Additionally, the motion is unopposed. The lack of an opposition operates as a concession that the motion has merit. (See California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(a); see also Rule 3.1320(f); Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20.) 

Although Hill requests an order compelling Plaintiff’s responses to requests for admission, no provision of the Discovery Act permits the Court to grant such relief. Rather, a party who received no responses to requests for admission may move to deem the requests for admission admitted under Code Civ. Proc., section 2033.280(c). Therefore, the motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to requests for admissions is DENIED. 

Because this motion was simple and unopposed, the Court awards Hill a reduced amount of sanctions for three hours of attorney time at a rate of $235 per hour plus four three filing fees for a total of $885.  

Hill moves to continue trial. Hill argues that good cause exists to continue trial because the parties require more time to continue discovery. (Colon Decl., ¶7.) Hill has not received Plaintiff’s discovery responses, nor has Plaintiff propounded any discovery on Hill. (Id., ¶¶7-9.) Other discovery, including expert discovery, is also pending. (Id., ¶10.) Hill’s expert will not be available on the current trial date. (Id., ¶14.) 

The Court finds good cause exists to continue trial under the circumstances. A continuance of 120 days to September 2025 is reasonable to allow the parties to complete discovery and prepare for trial.  

Conclusion 

The motion to continue trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to September 8, 2025 and Final Status Conference is set on August 26, 2025. Discovery and other trial related dates are to track with the new trial date.  

Hill’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to interrogatories and requests for production are GRANTED. The Court awards Hill sanctions for three hours of attorney time at a rate of $235 per hour plus four three filing fees for a total of $885. Plaintiff Ziad Ghandour is ordered to pay Defendant Hill Engineering & Construction these sanctions within 30 days of this order. 

Hill’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to requests for admissions is DENIED. 

Hill is ordered to pay two additional filing fees to the Court for a total of $120 within 10 days of this order.