TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Michael B. Gerhardt, M.D.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff, John Tebbens to Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff John Tebbens shall serve code-compliant responses to Defendant Michael B. Gerhardt, M.D.’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendant Michael B. Gerhardt, M.D.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff, John Tebbens to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff John Tebbens shall serve code-compliant responses to Defendant Michael B. Gerhardt, M.D.’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendant Michael B. Gerhardt, M.D.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff, John Tebbens to Respond to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff John Tebbens shall serve code-compliant responses to Defendant Michael B. Gerhardt, M.D.’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendant Michael B. Gerhardt, M.D.’s Motion to Deem Admitted Defendant’s Request for Admissions, Set One to Plaintiff John Tebbens is GRANTED. The matters identified in Defendant Michael B. Gerhardt, M.D.’s Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted against Plaintiff John Tebbens as of the date of entry of this order.

Defendant Michael B. Gerhardt, M.D.’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,710, payable by Plaintiff John Tebbens to Defendant Michael B. Gerhardt, M.D. and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendant Michael B. Gerhardt, M.D. to give notice.

REASONING

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (b), (c).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

Similarly, where there has been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. (Ibid.) There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required. (Contra Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1) [good cause requirement for motion to compel further responses].)

Further, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), a “party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction.” The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Defendant Michael B. Gerhardt, M.D. (“Defendant”) served Plaintiff John Tebbens (“Plaintiff”) with Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Admissions, Set One, on October 21, 2022. (Mots., Liu Decls. ¶ 3.) Responses were due on or before November 22, 2022, and defense counsel also communicated with Plaintiff to obtain the overdue responses without court intervention. (Mots., Liu Decls. ¶¶ 4, 5.) To date, no responses have been received. (Mots., Liu Decls. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff opposes the motions on the grounds that he has presented the Court with evidence of his symptoms, and he “seeks justice in this case” (Opp’n, p. 3), but this does not relieve Plaintiff of his duty to comply with discovery obligations. Further, the Court has continued the hearing on these motions to allow Plaintiff time to fully participate in this litigation, but he has not yet provided responses to Defendant. Insofar as Plaintiff states that he does not admit any of the requests for admission (Opp’n to Mot. to Deem Admitted, p. 3), this statement does not constitute code-compliant responses to Defendant’s discovery.

Accordingly, Defendant Michael B. Gerhardt, M.D.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff, John Tebbens to Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED, Defendant Michael B. Gerhardt, M.D.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff, John Tebbens to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED, and Defendant Michael B. Gerhardt, M.D.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff, John Tebbens to Respond to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff John Tebbens shall serve code-compliant responses to Defendant Michael B. Gerhardt, M.D.’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order. Defendant Michael B. Gerhardt, M.D.’s Motion to Deem Admitted Defendant’s Request for Admissions, Set One to Plaintiff John Tebbens is also GRANTED. The matters identified in Defendant Michael B. Gerhardt, M.D.’s Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted against Plaintiff John Tebbens as of the date of entry of this order.

If a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or requests for production is filed, the Court may impose a monetary sanction against the losing party “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).) If a motion to have requests for admission deemed admitted is filed, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Further, “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Defendant requests a total of $2,550 in monetary sanctions for the four motions. The Court finds that monetary sanctions are proper, but the Court reduces the amount to $1,710, representing six hours spent preparing the four motions and one hour spent appearing at the hearing on the motion, at the rate of $210 per hour, plus four $60 motion filing fees. Accordingly, Defendant Michael B. Gerhardt, M.D.’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,710, payable by Plaintiff John Tebbens to Defendant Michael B. Gerhardt, M.D. and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.