Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV00347, Date: 2023-10-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00347    Hearing Date: October 9, 2023    Dept: 74

Vancity Trade, LLC v. Dongjie Lin, et al.

(1) Plaintiff Vancity Trade, LLC’s Motion to Compel Defendant Dongjie Lin’s Responses to Special Interrogatories

(2) Plaintiff Vancity Trade, LLC’s Motion to Compel Defendant Dongjie Lin’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

(3) Plaintiff Vancity Trade, LLC’s Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was timely filed.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Given Defendant’s failure to respond to any of the discovery at issue, the court grants these motions. In addition, sanctions are warranted.

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a contractual dispute.

            On January 6, 2023, Plaintiff Vancity Trade, LLC (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Dongjie Lin (Defendant) and J-Max Transportation Group. The complaint alleges common counts, breach of contract, and fraud.

            On June 19, 2023, Plaintiff propounded special interrogatories, requests for production (RFPs), and requests for admission (RFAs) on Defendant.

            Defendant never responded to the discovery.

            On August 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed these motions to compel Defendant’s responses to the special interrogatories and RFPs, as well as deem matters admitted in the RFAs. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions.

DISCUSSION

            Motions to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories and RFPs.

¿¿            If a party to whom interrogatories or an inspection demand were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).) Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Failure to verify a response is equivalent to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) 

            If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed such a motion, the court “shall impose a monetary 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)¿

            Since Defendant has not provided timely, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories and RFPs, the court grants these motions.

            Motion to Deem Admitted Request for Admission

            If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) Further, the Court¿shall¿make this order, “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).) ¿

            While tardy responses may defeat the motion, they will not avoid monetary sanctions. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c) [“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction [Citation] on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”].)

            The court grants this motion as well because Defendant has not provided timely, code-compliant responses to the RFAs.

            Sanctions

            Given Defendant’s failure to respond to the special interrogatories, RFPs, and RFAs, the court finds that sanctions are warranted. Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable and he has substantiated his request with an hourly breakdown of work performed. (Look Decl., ¶ 8.) However, the court will not award Plaintiff’s counsel for duplicate work. And since Defendant’s counsel has failed to file a timely opposition for review, the court will adjust the award accordingly ($2,311.65 = $450 x (4 hours (motion) + 1 hour (preparation for and attendance at hearing) + $61.65 (filing fees).)

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant’s responses to the special interrogatories and RFPs. The court orders Defendant to serve without objection code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories and RFPs within 10 days. The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to deem matters admitted in the RFAs. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff attorney fees in the sum of $2,311.65 by November 9, 2023.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.