TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Murphy Rosen LLP’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) from Defendant John Spahi is GRANTED. Defendant John Spahi shall serve code-compliant responses to Plaintiff Murphy Rosen LLP’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Plaintiff Murphy Rosen LLP’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) from Defendant John Spahi is GRANTED. Defendant John Spahi shall serve code-compliant responses to Plaintiff Murphy Rosen LLP’s Special Interrogatories (Set One), without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Plaintiff Murphy Rosen LLP’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production (Set One) from Defendant John Spahi is GRANTED. Defendant John Spahi shall serve code-compliant responses to Plaintiff Murphy Rosen LLP’s Requests for Production (Set One) without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Plaintiff Murphy Rosen LLP’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is GRANTED. The matters identified in Plaintiff Murphy Rosen LLP’s Requests for Admissions (Set One) are deemed admitted as of the date of entry of this order.

Plaintiff Murphy Rosen LLP’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $3,915, payable by Defendant John Spahi and defense counsel to Plaintiff Murphy Rosen LLP and Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Plaintiff Murphy Rosen LLP 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).)

Plaintiff Murphy Rosen LLP (“Plaintiff”) served Defendant John Spahi (“Defendant”) with its Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One), and Requests for Admissions (Set One) on November 8, 2023. (Mots., Rosen Decls. ¶ 2.) Responses were due on or before December 11, 2023. (Ibid.) To date, no responses have been received. (Mots., Rosen Decls. ¶ 3.)

Defendant has filed an opposition to one of the four motions, seeking to stay this case until a criminal case against him is resolved. Notably, Defendant failed to object to the discovery issued in any way. This is not a proper motion for a stay, but Defendant argues that the Court may stay the proceedings on its own motion pursuant to Rule 3.515(a) of the California Rules of Court. The Court is not convinced that such a stay is warranted here.

“[T]he Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings,” but “a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings when the interests of justice seem to require such action.” (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 885, quotation marks, ellipses, and brackets omitted.) To determine “whether to stay civil proceedings in the face of a parallel criminal proceeding,” the court “should consider the extent to which the defendant’s fifth amendment rights are implicated.” (Ibid., quotation marks omitted.) The court should also consider the following five factors: “(1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.” (Ibid.)

Defendant has done little to compel a finding that conducting discovery in this case would implicate his Fifth Amendment rights, as he provides only conclusory statements that both this case and the criminal case have overlapping issues. Defendant argues that notes and descriptions of services rendered in invoices would trigger self-incrimination concerns, but Defendant has given little in the way of a description of the criminal charges to show that both cases concern the same issues, or that the documents would be incriminating in the criminal case, and the case docket of the criminal case does not provide any more insight. Defendant has also made only a blanket objection to the discovery requests without any individualized argument that would allow the Court to conclude that each discovery request implicates Fifth Amendment concerns. Put simply, it is not the Court’s responsibility to analyze each discovery request and determine whether it implicates constitutional concerns, nor is the onus on the Court to determine whether a stay is warranted. Moreover, Defendant has made no argument as to the interrogatories or requests for admission, such that Defendant would be compelled to respond to these requests, thus precluding a finding that his responses to the document requests would be self-incriminating, as related responses would presumably be provided with the other discovery requests.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Murphy Rosen LLP’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) from Defendant John Spahi, Plaintiff Murphy Rosen LLP’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) from Defendant John Spahi, and Plaintiff Murphy Rosen LLP’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production (Set One) from Defendant John Spahi are GRANTED. Defendant John Spahi shall serve code-compliant responses to Plaintiff Murphy Rosen LLP’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One) without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order. Plaintiff Murphy Rosen LLP’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is also GRANTED. The matters identified in Plaintiff Murphy Rosen LLP’s Requests for Admissions (Set One) are deemed admitted 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).)

Plaintiff requests $978.75 in monetary sanctions for each motion. The Court finds that monetary sanctions are proper, and the time spent and rates are reasonable. Thus, Plaintiff Murphy Rosen LLP’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $3,915, payable by Defendant John Spahi and defense counsel to Plaintiff Murphy Rosen LLP and Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.