On January 11, 2021, plaintiff Arturo Vasquez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Confie Seguros Holding Co. (“CSH”), Freeway Insurance Services, Inc. (“FIS”), Vigen Yaghobi, and Isaac Ashorzadeh, arising out of a January 14, 2019 slip and fall.  

On December 28, 2022, CSH and FIS (collectively, “Moving Parties”) filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One, (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One; (3) Requests for Production, Set One, and (4) to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission, Set One against Plaintiff.   

On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel filed oppositions. 

If a party to whom interrogatories and inspection demands were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses without objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).)  If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.280, subd. (b).)  Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.280, subd. (a), 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)   

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 is a general statute authorizing the Court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes (without limitation) a variety of conduct such as: making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)  

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction. 

If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or inspection demands, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . unless it 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, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)¿¿ In the context of a motion to deem requests for admission admitted, it is mandatory that the court impose monetary sanctions on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to the request necessitated the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).) 

Here, counsel for Moving Parties served the discovery requests on Plaintiff on June 3, 2022.  Responses were due by July 7, 2022.  However, despite granting numerous extensions to Plaintiff, as of the date of the filing of this motion, Plaintiff has yet to respond to discovery.  (Spearman Decls., ¶¶ 2-4.)  Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories, request for production, and requests for admission are waived.¿  

In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel submits oppositions arguing that counsel for Moving Parties have acted unreasonably by filing the instant motions and requesting sanctions because Plaintiff’s counsel has been transparent about Plaintiff’s lack of cooperation and responsiveness. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel contends that counsel for Moving Parties has not responded to attempts to communicate.  In response, Moving Parties counters that they indeed responded, to no avail.  

As Moving Parties properly served the discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Moving Parties are entitled to an order directing Plaintiff to provide responses to the discovery requests served on Plaintiff.  In addition, Moving Parties are entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted against Plaintiff.¿ 

Moving Parties request imposition of monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,356.00 against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel of record, for each motion filed for the sum total of $9,424.00.  Moving Parties’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED.  Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff in a total reduced amount of $1,880.00 for 8 hours at counsel for Moving Parties’ rate of $205.00 and $240.00 in filing fees to be paid to Moving Parties, by and through their counsel, within 20 days of notice of this ruling.