TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Ghusoub Alkhalil’s Motion for an Order Compelling Responses to His First Set of Demand for Production from Defendant Guardian Angel Locksmith is DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiff Ghusoub Alkhalil’s Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted Plaintiff Ghusoub Alkhalil’s Request for Admissions, Set One is DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiff Ghusoub Alkhalil’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,320, payable by Defendant Guardian Angel Locksmith and defense counsel to Plaintiff Ghusoub Alkhalil and Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Plaintiff Ghusoub Alkhalil to give notice. 

REASONING

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 Ghusoub Alkhalil (“Plaintiff”) served Defendant Guardian Angel Locksmith (“Defendant”) with its Request for Production of Documents [Set One] and Request for Admissions [Set One] on May 8, 2024. (Mots., Topchyan Decls. ¶ 5.) Defense counsel sought four extensions, which were allowed by Plaintiff, with responses due on September 6, 2024. (Mots., Topchyan Decls. ¶¶ 6-9.) The motions were filed on September 30, 2024. Defendant represents that it served its responses on October 1, 2024, with verifications provided on October 14, 2024. (Opp’ns, Park Decls. ¶¶ 4-5.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff Ghusoub Alkhalil’s Motion for an Order Compelling Responses to His First Set of Demand for Production from Defendant Guardian Angel Locksmith is DENIED as MOOT, and Plaintiff Ghusoub Alkhalil’s Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted Plaintiff Ghusoub Alkhalil’s Request for Admissions, Set One is DENIED as MOOT.

If a motion to compel responses to 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., § 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 $3,900 in monetary sanctions for each motion. The Court finds that monetary sanctions are proper, but the Court reduces the amount to $1,320 representing one hour spent preparing each motion, one hour spent communicating with counsel to obtain responses, and one hour spent appearing at the hearing on the motions, totaling four hours at the rate of $300 per hour, as this matter was not particularly complex, as well as two filing fees of $60. Thus, Plaintiff Ghusoub Alkhalil’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,320, payable by Defendant Guardian Angel Locksmith and defense counsel to Plaintiff Ghusoub Alkhalil and Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.