Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2022-01294646, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Before the Court are six unopposed discovery motions filed by the plaintiff, Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC (“plaintiff”).  The motions consist of three motions (motions to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and a motion to deem Requests for Admissions admitted) against two defendants, Farzaneh Abravani (the “individual defendant”) and Abravani Immigration Services, Inc. (the “entity defendant”).  With regard to the individual defendant, the motions are GRANTED.  With regard to the entity defendant, the motions are GRANTED – subject to the filing of a supplemental declaration attaching the discovery requests and the proofs of service.

According to the declaration of plaintiff’s counsel, all three discovery devices were served on the defendants and no responses were received.         

California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.290 provides in part as follows: “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:  (a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). …(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” 

Code of Civil Procedure §2031.300 provides in part as follows: 

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). …(b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.”

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).)  

Given the defendants’ complete lack of response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production, Plaintiff is entitled to orders deeming the admissions admitted (CCP § 2033.280(c)) and compelling responses to the form interrogatories and requests for production, without objections. (CCP §§ 2030.290 and 2031.260.)

Accordingly, the defendant is ordered to provide responses without objection to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, within 30 days of the date that notice of this ruling is served on the defendants.  It is further ordered that the requests for admission in Requests for Admissions, Set One, propounded to defendants are deemed admitted.

With regard to the entity defendants, this order is expressly made subject to the provision by the time of the hearing of a separate declaration from plaintiff attaching the subject discovery requests themselves and proofs of service of these discovery requests, which were omitted from the moving papers.

The Court further orders that the individual defendant pay reduced sanctions in the total amount of $1,718.85 for all three motions to plaintiff, through its attorney of record, within 60 days.  (CCP §§2030.290(c), 2031.300(c) 2033.280(c).)  Since the court cannot grant the motions against the entity defendants on the papers as presented, no sanctions are awarded thereon.

Counsel for plaintiff is ordered to give notice of these rulings.