Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case VC067392 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: VC067392, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: VC067392 Hearing Date: January 26, 2023 Dept: C

ZAVALA v. FRIAS

CASE NO.: VC067392

HEARING: 01/26/23

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production (set one) is GRANTED.

II. Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions (set one) Admitted as to Plaintiff is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Oppositions filed as of January 24, 2023.

If a party to whom document demands are directed fails to respond at all, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers thereto. (CCP §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, Defendants have shown that Request for Production of Documents (set one) was properly served onto Plaintiff on August 18, 2022. The deadline to respond has expired, and no responses of any kind have been provided. Defendants filed this Motion on November 14, 2022, approximately three months after service of the discovery. As of January 24, 2023, no Opposition has been filed to the subject Motion.

The unopposed Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide verified responses, without objection by no later than 10 days from 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 any Opposition to the instant Motion. As such, there is nothing to show that it acted with substantial justification and the Court knows of no other circumstances which would make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

Reasonable sanctions are awarded as follows: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant J. CRUZ ZAVALA is ORDERED to pay Defendants and their counsel of record reasonable sanctions in the total amount of $410.00. ($350/hr. x 1 hrs.) ($60 costs) no later than 30 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended per agreement of the parties.

Motion to Deem Admitted

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests…. 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 with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect…. (c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7…on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (CCP §2033.280.) No prior attempt to resolve the matter informally is required.

Here, RFAs were propounded by the Moving Party on August 18, 2022. To the Court’s knowledge, Plaintiff has failed to respond as of November 14, 2022 (the date this Motion was filed). Therefore, the unopposed motion is GRANTED.

Sanctions are mandatory pursuant to the terms of CCP §2033.280(c). Reasonable sanctions are awarded as follows: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant J. CRUZ ZAVALA is ORDERED to pay Defendants and their counsel of record reasonable sanctions in the total amount of $410.00. ($350/hr. x 1 hrs.) ($60 costs) no later than 30 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended per agreement of the parties.