Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 23STCV08662, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

On October 31, 2023, and November 1, 2023, Plaintiff, A. U. C., filed these motions to compel Defendant, Aroldo Marroquin, to provide responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, and to deem Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted against Defendant. Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant.

As a threshold issue, the Court notes that Defendant has attached verified responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admission, Set One, to his Opposition. As such, the motion to deem Requests for Admission, Set One, is MOOT. The Court will consider sanctions only in connection with that motion.

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., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) Failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a), 2033.280, 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 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., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.

Defendant argues the motions should be denied because Plaintiff did not meet and confer prior to filing these motions. Defendant’s argument lacks merit. There is no requirement that a propounding party meet and confer with a responding party regarding initial responses to discovery. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).)

As it is undisputed that Plaintiff properly served Defendant with the at-issue discovery requests on June 16, 2023, and Defendant has not provided responses, all objections to the discovery requests are waived.¿ Moreover, Plaintiff is entitled to an order directing Defendant to provide responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production of Documents, Set One.¿

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant. Defendant argues the request should be denied because Plaintiff did not include the fee request on the first page. The argument lacks merit. Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires only 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.¿¿Plaintiff has complied with this requirement. Given that the Court has granted Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production, sanctions are warranted. Indeed, in the context of requests for admissions, sanctions are mandatory, even when responses are untimely provided. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Defendant in the amount of $1,180, representing 2 hours at plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate and $180 in filing fees.

The motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, are granted. Defendant Aroldo Marroquin is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents.

The request for sanctions is granted. Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,180 to Plaintiff, by and through her counsel.

Discovery responses are to be provided and sanctions are to be paid within 30 days of the date of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court