Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

December 30, 2022

22STCV16439

-Plaintiff’s Motion to Admit Request for Admission (Set One) and Request for Sanctions 

-Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production (Set One) and Request for Sanctions

Both motions are granted.

Defendant is ordered to serve within 30 days after the date of this order verified responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Request for Production (Set One).

Defendant is deemed to have admitted Plaintiff’s Request for Admission (Set One).

The requests for sanctions are granted. Sanctions in the total amount of $1,170 are imposed jointly and severally against Defendant and Defendant’s Counsel of Record. Sanctions are due within 30 days after the date of this order.

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

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in August 2020. Plaintiff George Salman filed his Complaint against Defendant Maria Rosario Delgadillo on May 17, 2022.

Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (“RPDs”) and to Deem Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”) admitted on November 30, 2022.

Plaintiff originally propounded the first set of RPDs and RFAs on Defendant on September 26, 2022. To date, Defendant has not responded although responses were due by October 28, 2022.

Defendant argues in opposition that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to meet and confer. Defendant also claims the discovery responses were late due to Defendant’s counsel’s failure to calendar the responses and requested an extension to serve responses without a waiver of objections. Defendant alleges that she granted Plaintiff two extensions to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests and expected to receive the same from Plaintiff. Plaintiff rejected the request, did not meet and confer, and demanded that Defendant serve immediate responses without objections. 

Defendant also moves for relief from waiver of objection.

Plaintiff points out that the Court denied his request to consolidate all motions and renews his request. Plaintiff also argues that he was not required to meet and confer before making the instant motions. Plaintiff also states that Defendant served a voluntary document production that is not code compliant. Additionally, Defendant has not served responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs.

 

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).)

Unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all, and are subject to a motion to compel responses (rather than a motion to compel further responses).  (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 635-36.) However, objections to interrogatories and demands for production are not required to be verified because “objections are legal conclusions interposed by counsel, not factual assertions by a party.” (Blue Ridge Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 339, 345.) 

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 seeks to compel responses to RPDs from Defendant and to deem RFAs admitted.

Here, Plaintiff is entitled to orders compelling Defendant’s responses to RPDs. Plaintiff’s request is supported by a declaration counsel. Plaintiff propounded written discovery on Defendant on September 26, 2022 with responses due on October 28, 2022. (Vafa Decl., ¶¶2.) On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendant’s counsel and granted an extension for several more weeks on the condition that Defendant serve responses without objections and provide a response to FROG number 4.1. (Id., ¶4.) On December 16, 2022, Defendant served incomplete, unverified responses to RPDs that also failed to include identifiers illustrating which Request the responses corresponded to. Vafa Supplemental Declaration, ¶20.)

Defendant’s unverified responses to RPDs are tantamount to no response at all. Although Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to meet and confer, there is no meet and confer requirement where a party fails to serve any response to requests for production and requests for admission. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 CA4th 390, 411.) Here, Defendant does not dispute that the responses are late and that she has not served verified responses to date. Because Defendant has served no response to Plaintiff’s RPDs, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. 

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

Defendant also moves for relief from waiver of objections on the grounds that the discovery responses were late due to a clerical error. However, Defendant must make her own motion and serve code-compliant responses in the meantime.

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. Pricewaterhouse Coopers (Court of Appeal, Second District (2022) 2022 WL 12010415.) 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)). 

Here, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted because Defendant unsuccessfully opposed these motion and the Court does not find that Defendant acted with substantial justification. Regardless of any opposition, sanctions are mandatory with respect to the request for admission. 

Plaintiff requests $4,908.53 total for all four motions to compel discovery responses that Plaintiff has filed or $1,227.13 per motion. 

This amount is not reasonable given the duplicative nature of the two motions at issue here. For both motions, the Court awards sanctions in the total amount of $1,170 (three hours of time at $350 per hour plus $120 for two filing fees).