Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

December 23, 2022

22STCV21437

-Motion to Compel Respondent Steven Akopyan to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One) 

-Motion to Compel Respondent Steven Akopyan to Respond to Request for Production of Documents (Set One)

-Motion to Compel Respondent Shushan Khalachyan to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)

-Motion to Compel Respondent Shushan Khalachyan to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)

-Motion to Compel Respondent Shushan Khalachyan to Respond to Request for Production of Documents (Set One)

All five motions are granted.

Respondents are ordered to serve verified responses without objections within 30 days after the date of this order.

Moving party 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 uninsured motorist arbitration proceeding arising from a vehicle collision which took place in July 2019. Plaintiff Farmers Insurance Exchange filed its Petition against Respondents Shushan Khalachyan and Steven Akopyan on July 1, 2022.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Respondent Akopyan’s and Respondent Khalachyan’s responses to written discovery on August 11, 2022.

Moving Arguments

Plaintiff originally propounded written discovery on Khalachyan and Akopyan on April 14, 2022. To date, neither Khalachyan nor Akopyan have served responses.

Opposing Arguments

None.

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. 

Plaintiff seeks to compel Respondent Akopyan’s responses to SROGs and RPDs. Plaintiff also seeks to compel Respondent Khalachyan’s responses to FROGs, SROGs and RPDs.

Here, Plaintiff is entitled to orders compelling Respondents’ responses to written discovery. Plaintiff’s request is supported by a declaration counsel. Plaintiff propounded written discovery on both Respondents on April 14, 2022 with responses due on May 19, 2022. (Petrosyan Decl., ¶¶4-5.) After receiving no responses, Plaintiff’s counsel called Respondents’ counsel to discuss the overdue responses. (Id., ¶6.) Respondents’ counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that he was still preparing the responses and requested an extension to June 2, 2022. (Id.) On May 27, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel granted the extension and confirmed the new due date over email. (Id., ¶7.) Respondents’ counsel thereafter requested another extension to June 9, 2022, which Plaintiff’s counsel granted. (Id., ¶8.) On June 16, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Respondents’ counsel to discuss the overdue responses again and granted another extension. (Id., ¶9.) Plaintiff’s counsel then successively granted two more extensions. (Id., ¶¶10-11.) Respondents’ counsel sent a letter stating he would be sending discovery responses on July 18, 2022. (Id., ¶12.) To date, Respondents have not responded to Plaintiff’s requests for discovery. (Id., ¶13.)

Because Respondents have served no response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, Plaintiff’s motions are granted.