Judge Helen Zukin, Case 19SMCV01926 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 19SMCV01926, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV01926 Hearing Date: January 19, 2023 Dept: 207

Background

Plaintiff Ahnna McDevitt (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant Anni Chakmakchian (“Defendant”) and others concerning claims for defective workmanship in connection with a remodeling project at a property owned by Plaintiff. Plaintiff previously propounded written discovery on Defendant in the form of Requests for Admission, Requests for Production of Documents, and Form Interrogatories. Plaintiff brings three separate motions concerning Defendant’s alleged failure to respond to these categories of written discovery. Plaintiff’s motions are all unopposed. As these motions all concern the same operative facts, the Court will address them together.

Legal Standard

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (C.C.P. § 2033.250(a).) “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” (C.C.P. § 2033.280(a).) “The requesting 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.” (Id. at subd. (b).) A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

Similarly, a party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Analysis

On June 30, 2020, Plaintiff served Defendant with written discovery in the form of Requests for Admission, Set One; Form Interrogatories, Set One; and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff’s counsel has made multiple attempts to confer with Defendant regarding the production of responses to this written discovery, however to date Defendant has not provided responses or objections to the Form Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, or Requests for Production propounded by Plaintiff. (See Hom Decls.)

As set forth above, where a party fails to respond to Requests for Admission, the propounding party is entitled to an order deeming the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests to be admitted by the responding party. Where a party fails to respond to Requests for Production and Interrogatories, the responding party is deemed to have waived all objections and the propounding party is entitled to an order requiring the responding party to substantively respond to the Requests for Production and Interrogatories.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to deem the Requests for Admission served on Defendant admitted. The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to respond to the Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents propounded by Plaintiff on June 30, 2020.

Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,260 for each of these three motions, totaling $3,780. The Court notes the requested sanctions anticipated incurring $1,200 in fees ($400 per motion) to prepare replies in support of these motions. Plaintiff’s motions were unopposed, and no replies were ultimately filed by Plaintiff. Additionally, the Court in its discretion finds the remaining $2,580 requested by Plaintiff to be excessive in light of the simplicity of these motions which concern a complete failure on the part of Defendant to provide any responses rather than the legitimacy of specific objections or responses. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions and in its discretion awards Plaintiff monetary sanctions of $575 for each motion, totaling $1,725.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to deem Requests for Admission admitted is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents are GRANTED. Defendant is to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production within 20 days of the date of this order. Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are GRANTED and the Court imposes a monetary sanction against Defendant of $575 for each of the motions brought by Plaintiff, totaling $1,725, to be paid to counsel for Plaintiff within 20 days of the date of this order.