TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Peter Allen Dodd’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Set 1 and Special Interrogatories Set 1 is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Anthony Newton shall serve code-compliant responses to Defendant Peter Allen Dodd’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One, without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendant Peter Allen Dodd’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Production of Documents is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Anthony Newton shall serve code-compliant responses to Defendant Peter Allen Dodd’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendant Peter Allen Dodd’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is GRANTED.

The matter identified in Defendant Peter Allen Dodd’s Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted against Plaintiff Anthony Newton as of the date of entry of this order.

Defendant Peter Allen Dodd’s Requests for Monetary Sanctions are GRANTED in the reduced amount of $2,280, payable by Plaintiff Anthony Newton and Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendant Peter Allen Dodd and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendant Peter Allen Dodd to give notice. 

REASONING

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Defendant Peter Allen Dodd (“Defendant”) has filed one of its motions set to be heard on this date as to two sets of discovery, specifically Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, such that this motion should have been filed as two separate motions. Defendant is required to pay a fourth filing fee of $60 within ten (10) days of entry of this order.

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 served Plaintiff Anthony Newton (“Plaintiff”) with his Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Requests for Admission, Set One, on February 13, 2024. (Mots., Brown Decls. ¶ 2.) Responses were due on or before March 18, 2024, and defense counsel also communicated with Plaintiff’s counsel to extend the response date to May 3, 2024. (Mots., Brown Decls. ¶¶ 3-5.) Plaintiff requested another extension but did not respond to further communication from defense counsel, including communication requesting responses by May 17, 2024. (Mots., Brown Decls. ¶¶ 6-8.) To date, no responses have been received. (Mots., Brown Decls. ¶ 8.)

Accordingly, Defendant Peter Allen Dodd’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Set 1 and Special Interrogatories Set 1 is GRANTED, Defendant Peter Allen Dodd’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Production of Documents is GRANTED, and Defendant Peter Allen Dodd’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is GRANTED. Plaintiff Anthony Newton shall serve code-compliant responses to Defendant Peter Allen Dodd’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order. The matter identified in Defendant Peter Allen Dodd’s Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted against Plaintiff Anthony Newton 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 request $2,310 in monetary sanctions for each motion. The Court finds that monetary sanctions are proper, but the Court reduces the amount to $1980, representing one and one half hours spent preparing each motion and one one and half hours spent appearing at the motion hearing, totaling six hours at the rate of $300 per hour, as well as three filing fees. Accordingly, Defendant Peter Allen Dodd’s Requests for Monetary Sanctions are GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1980, payable by Plaintiff Anthony Newton and Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendant Peter Allen Dodd and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.