Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Castro v. City of Anaheim, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation (the “State”) filed motions to compel responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and RFPs (Set One) propounded to Plaintiff Ignacio Castro. The State also moved to deem requests for admission, set one, admitted by Plaintiff Ignacio Castro. The court record reflects Plaintiff filed no opposition to the motions. For the following reasons, the unopposed motions are GRANTED.

Motions Nos. 1-3

A party may move for an order compelling responses to discovery at any time if the party to whom interrogatories or requests for production are directed fails to serve a timely response. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b).) By failing to serve timely responses, the responding party 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(a); 2031.300(a).)

Here, the record reflects that the State served the discovery at issue to Plaintiff on January 24, 2023.  As such, the discovery responses were due on February 24, 2023.  The State’s motions establish that as of the date that the State filed the motions, no responses were ever received despite the State’s sending a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff requesting responses. Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition or any notice to show that Plaintiff has since served responses and/or to provide any substantial justification for Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond.

The court finds that based on Plaintiff’s failure to serve responses to the form interrogatories and special interrogatories, Plaintiff has “waive[d] 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(a).) As a result of Plaintiff’s failure to serve timely responses to the requests for production, Plaintiff also “waive[d] any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).) 

These motions are, therefore, GRANTED.  No later than thirty (30) days after service of the notice of ruling, Plaintiff shall serve verified responses without objections to the State’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One).

Motion No. 4

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.280(b) provides that where a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding 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).” Section 2033.280(b) provides that: “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(c); St. Mary v. Super. Ct. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778.) By failing to serve timely responses, a responding party waives “any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(a).)

The court finds that as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to serve timely responses to request for admission, set one, Plaintiff has waived any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection of work product . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(a).) The truth of the matters specified in requests for admission, set one, propounded by the State are hereby deemed admitted by Plaintiff Castro. 

Sanctions

Moving Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff is granted in part. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(b).) The court finds that the amount of sanctions that the State seeks is excessive. Plaintiff Ignacio Castro is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $2,000 to the State, within 30 days of the service of the notice of ruling.

The State to give notice.