Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 18NWCV00147 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 18NWCV00147, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18NWCV00147 Hearing Date: March 28, 2023 Dept: C

MAKRIDIS v. BOULOS

CASE NO.: 18NWCV00147

HEARING: 3/28/23 @ 9:30 AM

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendants Andrew A. Boulos and Andrew Ayad Boulos’s motion to compel responses from Plaintiff George Makridis to Defendants’ form interrogatories (set one) and request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED.

II. Defendants Andrew A. Boulos and Andrew Ayad Boulos’s motion to compel responses from Plaintiff George Makridis to Defendants’ requests for production of documents (set one) and request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED.

III. Defendants Andrew A. Boulos and Andrew Ayad Boulos’s motion to compel responses from Plaintiff George Makridis to Defendants’ special interrogatories (set one) and request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED.

IV. Defendants Andrew A. Boulos and Andrew Ayad Boulos’s motion to have requests for admissions deemed admitted as to George Makridis and request for order awarding monetary sanctions is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Makridis is ordered to serve responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and document demands without objections within 15 days. The truth of the matters in the request for admissions is deemed admitted. Reduced sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff’s counsel in the reasonable sum of $2,000.00 payable within 30 days.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendants Andrew A. Boulos and Andrew Ayad Boulos move to compel responses to form Interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and to deem matters admitted pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, and 2033.280.

CCP §§ 2030.290(b) and 2031.300(b) allow the propounding party to file a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and document demands if a response has not been received. If responses are untimely, responding party waives objections. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a) and 2031.300(a).) CCP § 2033.280(b) and (c) allow the propounding party to file a motion requesting that the truth of any matters specified in the request for admissions be deemed admitted unless the party to whom the requests have been directed has served before the hearing a proposed response that is in substantial compliance.

Defendants requested discovery on March 29, 2022, and provided Plaintiff with numerous extensions to produce discovery. (Alfaro Decl., ¶¶ 6-18.) Plaintiff Makridis failed to serve any responses. Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve responses without objections within 15 days. The truth of the matters in Defendant Boulos’s request for admissions is deemed admitted.

Sanctions: CCP §§ 2023.010(d), 2030.290(c), and 2031.300(c) authorize the court to impose sanctions for failure to respond to discovery without substantial justification. CCP § 2033.280 makes the imposition of sanctions mandatory if a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admission.

Here, sanctions are appropriate because Plaintiff failed to serve timely responses to discovery, and imposition of sanctions is mandatory because Plaintiff failed to respond to request for admissions. Because it appears that the failure to respond was due to Plaintiff’s counsel, sanctions are imposed against counsel only. The court finds Defendant’s total request of $4,956.00 is excessive. Instead, reduced sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff’s counsel in the reasonable sum of $2,000.00 payable within 30 days.