Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

December 20, 2022

21STCV00571

-Motion to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) by Defendant Gale/Triangle, Inc. filed by Plaintiff

-Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production (Set One) as to Defendant Gale/Triangle, Inc. filed by Plaintiff

-Motion to Deem Request for Admission (Set One) Admitted as to Defendant Gale/Triangle, Inc. filed by Plaintiff

The parties are ordered to appear at the hearing.

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in January 2019. Plaintiff Francisco Chavez filed his Complaint against Defendants Isidro Gonzalez Granados and Gale/Triangle, Inc. (“Gale/Triangle”).

Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel Defendant Gale/Triangle’s responses to written discovery and to deem RFAs admitted on August 11, 2022.

Plaintiff propounded discovery requests on Defendant Gale/Triangle on October 14, 2021 and has not received responses to date. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions.

Gale/Triangle argues that Plaintiff’s motion will be moot because it will have served responses by the time of the hearing. The opposition was late because Gale/Triangle’s counsel mis calendared the hearing. 

Plaintiff argues that Gale/Triangle believes it is still entitled to object to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and argues that it waived objection by filing late responses.

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.

Compelling Response to Demand for Production of Documents 

 

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).)

A court may not award monetary sanctions under Code Civ. Proc. §§2023.010 and 2023.030 standing alone or read together. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 500.) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with 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)).) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to deem requests for admissions admitted if a party to whom the requests for admissions have been directed failed to serve a timely response to the request for admission. (Code Civ. Proc., §2033.280(c).) 

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant Gale/Triangle’s responses to SROGs, FROGs, and RPDs. Plaintiff also moves to deem RFAs admitted. Although Gale/Triangle’s opposition was late, the Court will consider the opposition.

Plaintiff is entitled to orders compelling Gale/Triangle’s verified responses without objections to FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs. Defendant supports his motion with a declaration from Counsel. Defendant first propounded written discovery on October 14, 2021. (Foose Decl., ¶2.) Thereafter, Gale/Triangle’s counsel requested six extensions, with the most recent extension setting a due date for March 15, 2022. (Id., ¶¶3-9.) As of the filing of these motions, Gale/Triangle had not served any responses to Plaintiff’s requests for written discovery. Although Gale/Triangle states in its opposition that complete responses will be served prior to the hearing on this motion, there is no evidence that responses have in fact been served. 

With respect to objections, Gale/Triangle must serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests without objections. Because Gale/Triangle failed to provide timely responses to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests, Gale/Triangle waived its right to object to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Even if Gale/Triangle served responses prior to the hearing on these motions, any objections are waived. 

With respect to Plaintiff’s motion to deem RFAs admitted, if Gale/Triangle served responses before the hearing on this matter, the motion will be denied. Any objections to Plaintiff’s RFAs are waived because the response is untimely. If responses were not served before the hearing, the motion will be granted.

Discovery sanctions may not be imposed under Section 2023.030, even together with Section 2023.010, absent another provision of the Discovery Act that authorizes the imposition of sanctions. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 500.) Sanctions for with respect to the interrogatories and the request for production are only authorized against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses. (See Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c)). Sanctions with respect to the motion to deem requests for admissions admitted are mandatory if a party to whom the requests for admissions have been directed failed to serve a timely response to the request for admission. (Code Civ. Proc., §2033.280(c).) 

Here, Gale/Triangle failed to serve timely responses to Plaintiff’s requests for written discovery. Gale/Triangle also opposed the motions without substantial justification. However, because the motions were simple and very similar, the Court awards $996.09 in sanctions for 4 hours of attorney time and filing fees total for all three motions.