Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2022-01278555, Date: 2023-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Before the Court are four discovery motions filed by defendant Matthew Waller against plaintiff Anthony Mazza.  The motions are: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, (3) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production and (4) Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted.  As discussed below, the motions are MOOT in part and GRANTED in part.    

Responses to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission are due 30 days after service (plus appropriate time for method of service). (CCP §§ 2030.260, 2031.260, and 2033.250.) With respect to the Requests for Admission, a propounding party may ask the court for an order that deems the matters contained in the requests for admission admitted if the receiving party fails to respond to the requests for admission. (CCP § 2033.280(b).) The court shall grant the order unless it finds that the party to whom the requests were directed has served responses in conformance with Code Civ. Proc. §2033.220 before the hearing on the motion. (CCP § 2033.280(c).)

Plaintiff states in the oppositions that responses to all four sets of discovery were served on May 30, 2023.  Along with the opposition to the motion to deem RFAs admitted, the plaintiff submitted a copy of the responses to requests for admissions which conform to CCP §2033.220.

While this makes the motions moot as to compelling further responses, the issue of the requested sanctions remains.  Rule of Court 3.1348(a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” 

The court may impose sanctions against any party for engaging in conduct constituting a “misuse of the discovery process.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030 (a).) Misuse of the discovery process includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010 (d).)  Civil Procedure Code section 2030.290(c) requires the court to “impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.”  (Civil Proc. Code, §2030.290(c); see also, CCP §2031.310(h) and CCP §2033.280.)

Here, sanctions are warranted.  Not only was the defendant the successful party, but, before filing the motion, the defendant made multiple attempts to resolve the matters informally and to avoid these motions.  Defendant granted three requests for extensions of time by plaintiff’s counsel to respond to the discovery.  (Exhibits 2-4)  Defense counsel engaged in extensive correspondence in an attempt to obtain the discovery responses. (Exhibits 5-6)  Plaintiff’s counsel even represented on one occasion that the responses would be served “soon” and on another occasion agreed to provide  the responses “by the end of the week.” (Exhibit 6.)  Despite all of the foregoing, as of the filing of the motion, plaintiff had not responded to the four sets of discovery. (Gunther Decl. at ¶11)  It appears that the filing of the motion was the impetus for the plaintiff to finally respond to the discovery as the responses were served concurrent with the oppositions and more than 2 months after the motions were filed.

Accordingly, the Court grants the request for sanctions and orders that plaintiff Anthony Mazza, and his attorney Farid Yadegar, jointly and severally, pay sanctions in the reduced amount of $600 per motion, for a total of $2,400 to defendant, through his attorney of record, within 60 days.

Counsel for moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.