Judge Jill Feeney, Case 20STCV45724 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff Mullajanov and Mullajanov’s counsel of record jointly and severally in the amount of $1,022.5. Sanctions are due within 20 days after the date of this order.

On May 24, 2022, Defendant filed motions to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted and Compel Responses to Requests for Production and Inspection of Documents, Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, and Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories against Sherzod Mullajanov.

Defendant originally propounded FROGs, SROGs, RFPs, and RFAs on Plaintiff on March 1, 2022. Responses were originally due on April 4, 2022. To date, Defendant has not received any responses to his discovery requests. Defendant also requests sanctions in the amount of $1,110 per motion.

Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.260, subd. (a).)

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc section 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that needs be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

A party waives its objections to a discovery request when it does not serve a timely response to the request. (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.290(a)) Even if objections do not need to be verified, objections will be waived if the responding party “fails to file any response within the statutory time period.” Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 658.

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Where there has been no timely response to requests for admissions, a “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 (commencing with section 2023.010).” The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)

Sanctions may be imposed for misuse of discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a). ) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c).)

Defendant is entitled to orders compelling Plaintiff’s responses to FROGs, SROGs, and RFPs. Defendant supports his claims with a declaration from Counsel. Defendant propounded his second set of discovery requests on Plaintiff on March 1, 2022. (Johnson Decl., ¶3.) Responses were due on April 4, 2022. (Id.) On April 11, 2022, Defendant’s counsel sent meet and confer correspondence to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting responses by April 22, 2022. (Id., ¶4.) On April 29, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel requested an extension to May 13, 2022 which Defendant’s counsel granted. (Id., 5.) On May 18, 2022, after responses were due, Plaintiff requested another extension, which Defendant refused. (Id., ¶6.) Defendant to date has not received responses to his second set of discovery requests from Plaintiff. Because Plaintiff has not provided responses to Defendant’s discovery requests, the motion is granted.

The same analysis applies to Defendant’s request to deem its requests for admissions admitted. The genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in Defendant’s motions are admitted.

With respect to sanctions, the Court finds that Plaintiff has misused the discovery process by failing to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests. Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $1,110 per motion at an hourly rate of $175 and supports the request with a declaration from Counsel. However, since the motions were substantially the same, the figure must be adjusted. The Court grants a total of $1,022.5 for 5.5 hours of attorney time and filing fees for the four motions.