Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00864, Date: 2023-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00864    Hearing Date: September 28, 2023    Dept: C

AVINA v. COLLAZO-VENEGAS

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00864

HEARING:  09/28/23

#4

     I.        Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (set one) is GRANTED.

    II.        Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant’s Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give notice.

No Opposition(s) filed as of September 25, 2023.  

Background

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was having difficulty making mortgage payments on her home and met Defendant, a purported realtor, who represented she could help Plaintiff modify her loan.  Instead of doing so, they agreed that Defendant would move into the residence and pay rent in an amount equal to the mortgage.  Plaintiff moved out of the residence and eventually found another realtor to help her sell the property.  Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, a grant deed was recorded which transferred the property to Defendant’s parents and brother.  Plaintiff also learned that a loan had been taken out against the home in the amount of $200,000 as security for a bail bond for Defendant’s brother.  Plaintiff brings causes of action for quiet title, slander of title, fraud and declaratory relief. 

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A state of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (CCP §2031.310(a).)

A motion to compel further responses to a request for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (CCP §2031.310(b).)

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection… fails to serve a timely response to it…(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection… is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product….The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance…. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (emphasis added.)” (CCP §2031.300(a).)

The Motion is GRANTED in full. Plaintiff has properly put in issue the objections and deficiencies in Defendant’s responses to the discovery at issue. Defendant’s subject responses state that documents would be produced “herewith”. However, to date, no documents have been produced. As of September 25, 2023 no substantive Opposition to the Motion has been filed and the Court is unaware of whether any supplemental responses/documents have been served. The Court has reviewed Defendant’s current responses and finds that they are incomplete and inadequate. Defendant is ORDERED to produce further documents and further verified responses without objections to each RPD identified by no later than 15 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order. 

Reasonable sanctions in favor of Plaintiff are warranted. Defendant SANDOVAL and their counsel are jointly and severally ORDERED to pay reasonable sanctions in the amount of $760.00 ($350/hr. x 2 hrs.) + ($60 filing fee), payable within 30 days of the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended by agreement of the parties.

Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories (Not Further)

If a party to whom interrogatories and document demands are directed fails to respond at all, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers thereto. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) All that needs to be shown is that the discovery was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. The moving party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the matter informally before filing this motion. A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The failure to timely respond also waives all objections.

Here, Plaintiff has shown that Form Interrogatories (set one) were properly served onto Defendant DANIEL SANDOVAL on December 12, 2022. The deadline to respond has expired, and no responses of any kind have been provided to Form Interrogatory 17.1.  Plaintiff filed this Motion on March 15, 2023— over three months after service of the discovery. As of September 25, 2023, no Opposition has been filed to the subject Motions.

Therefore, the Motion to Compel is GRANTED, and Defendant SANDOVAL is ORDERED to provide verified responses, without objection to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 by no later than 15 days from date of the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended by stipulation of the parties. If any objections are asserted, it will be tantamount to no response at all and will be deemed a violation of this Court’s order.

Sanctions may be awarded against a party who fails to oppose a motion to compel. (C.R.C 3.1348(a).). Plaintiff failed to submit Oppositions to the instant Motions. As such, there is nothing to show that they acted with substantial justification and the Court knows of no other circumstances which would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. 

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED. Defendant SANDOVAL and their counsel of record are ORDERED to pay Plaintiff and their counsel of record, sanctions in the amount of $585.00 ($350 x 1.5 hr.)  ($60 filing fee) by no later than 30 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended per agreement of the parties.