Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2022-01239575, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Farhad Edward Khosravi moves to compel Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Mahmoud Ashouri to provide responses to form interrogatories, set two, no. 17.1, and requests for production, set two.  Defendant also moves to deem admitted the requests for admission, set one.

Legal Standard

A propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to interrogatories at any time “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  By failing to serve timely responses, Plaintiff waived “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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

A propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to a demand for inspection at any time “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)  By failing to serve timely responses, Plaintiff waived “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).”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

A propounding party may move for an order to deem the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted “[i]f a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  By failing to serve timely responses, the party to whom requests are directed “waive[s] any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

Merits

On February 2, 2023, Defendant properly served the discovery on Plaintiff.  Plaintiff failed to serve timely responses.  No oppositions were filed.  However, Plaintiff filed declarations in support of opposition, indicating an intent to serve responses prior to the hearing.  (Decls. in support of opposition.) 

Unless Plaintiff serves Code-compliant responses to Defendant's first set of requests for admissions, prior to this hearing, the truth of the matters specified in the requests for admissions, set one, are deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c) [the court shall deem the matters admitted “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”]; see also St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 782 [actual compliance not required where the proposed response is facially a good-faith effort to respond to requests for admission in a manner that is substantially code-compliant].) 

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified, Code-compliant responses without objections to the form interrogatories, set two, no. 17.1, and requests for production, set two, within 20 days of the notice of ruling.

Defendant is awarded total sanctions of $2,647.35 against Plaintiff.  Within 30 days of the notice of the ruling, Plaintiff shall pay $2,647.35 to Madison Law, APC. 

Defendant shall give notice of the rulings.