Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

August 12, 2022

21STCV44661 

Motion to Compel Responses from Plaintiff to Requests for Production filed by Defendants Sk Md Kamruzzaman and Fatema Ferdousi

The motion is granted.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendants’ RFPs within 30 days after the date of this order.

Sanctions in the amount of $410 are imposed against Plaintiff. Sanctions are payable within 30 days after the date of this order.

Moving party is ordered to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order. 

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in August 2021.

On July 18, 2022, Defendants filed this motion to compel responses to RFPs and for sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $585. 

Defendants state they propounded written discovery, including RFPs on Plaintiff on January 6, 2022. After granting three extensions, Defendants have still not received any response to any of their requests for discovery.

None.

 

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. 

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.

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).) 

Defendants seek to compel responses to RFPs from Plaintiff.

Here, Defendants are entitled to orders compelling Plaintiff’s responses to RFPs. Defendants’ request is supported by a declaration from their counsel. Defendants propounded discovery requests on January 6, 2022. (Ogunnubi Decl., ¶3, Exhibit A.) Plaintiff’s then-counsel requested an extension to March 14, 2022, which Defendants granted. (Id., ¶4.) Plaintiff’s counsel requested two more extensions to April 29, 2022 and then to May 23, 2022, both of which Defendants granted. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel was relieved as counsel on April 20, 2022. (Id., ¶5.) After Defendants received no response on May 23, 2022, Defendants’ counsel sent meet and confer correspondence by mail to Plaintiff at her address of record on June 10, 2022. (Id., ¶6, Exhibit C.) Defendants have not received any response to their inquiries, nor have they received any responses to their discovery requests. (Id., ¶7.) Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to compel responses to RFPs  is granted.

With respect to sanctions, the Court finds that Plaintiff has misused the discovery process by failing to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests. Defendants request sanctions in the amount of $585 and support their request with a declaration from counsel. Counsel’s calculation of sanctions consists of one hour of attorney time preparing the motion, another hour to review opposition and draft a reply, one hour to attend the hearing, and filing fees of $60. Counsel’s rate is $175 per hour. Given that no opposition was filed, the Court grants sanctions for two hours of attorney time and filing fees for a total of $410.