Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: De Franco v. City of Laguna Beach, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motions to Compel and Motion to Deem Facts Admitted.

Defendant City of Laguna Beach moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Gina De Franco to provide verified responses without objections to Defendant’s form interrogatories (set three), supplemental interrogatories, and requests for production of documents (set one).  Defendant also moves for an order deeming admitted Defendant’s second set of requests for admission.  For the following reasons, the unopposed motions are GRANTED.

On September 11, 2020, Defendant served on Plaintiff the form interrogatories, set three, and the requests for admissions, set two.  On December 4, 2020, May 28, 2021, and January 21, 2022, Defendant served on Plaintiff the supplemental interrogatories and supplemental requests for production of documents, sets one, two, and three. 

Given Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling responses without objection.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)  Because Plaintiff did not timely respond, objections to the discovery requests are waived. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a).)  Plaintiff has not filed an Opposition, and there is no evidence that Plaintiff responded to the discovery requests.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses without objections within 30 days of notice of this ruling.

With respect to 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.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) 

Defendant has provided evidence that Plaintiff failed to respond to the requests for admission (Set Two).  Plaintiff has not opposed the motion or otherwise provided the Court with proof that Plaintiff provided responses to the requests.  Accordingly, the requests for admission (Set Two) are deemed admitted.

The Court turns to the issue of sanctions.  For every motion except the requests for admission motion, Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel only.  For those motions that Defendant seeks sanctions only against Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court declines to issue sanctions.  Sanctions against counsel “require a finding the ‘attorney advis[ed] that conduct.’” (Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 261.)  There is no evidence Plaintiff’s attorney advised Plaintiff not to respond to the discovery requests.  Rather, it appears counsel failed to respond for an unexplained reason.  Sanctions are not appropriate against Plaintiff for these motions because Defendant’s notice did not request sanctions against Plaintiff.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.040.)  

Sanctions are mandatory for an outright failure to respond to requests for admission.  For the requests for admission motion, Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions of $615 (3 hours at $205 per hour), payable within 30 days of notice of this ruling. 

Defendant to give notice.