TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Emigdio Cordova and Teresa Cordova’s Motion to Compel Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.’s Responses to First Set of Form Interrogatories is DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiffs Emigdio Cordova and Teresa Cordova’s Motion to Compel Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.’s Responses to First Set of Special Interrogatories is DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiffs Emigdio Cordova and Teresa Cordova’s Motion to Compel Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.’s Responses to First Set of Requests for Production of Documents is DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiffs Emigdio Cordova and Teresa Cordova’s Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission to Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Admitted and Conclusively Established is DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiffs Emigdio Cordova and Teresa Cordova’s Requests for Monetary Sanctions are DENIED.

Plaintiffs Emigdio Cordova and Teresa Cordova 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).)

Plaintiffs Emigdio Cordova and Teresa Cordova (“Plaintiffs”) served Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Defendant”) with their First Set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission on Decenver 18, 2024. (Mots., Cohen Decls. ¶ 4.) Responses were due on or before January 20, 2025, and counsel communicated to extend the response date to February 5, 2025. (Mots., Cohen Decls. ¶ 7.) On February 10, 2025, defense counsel stated that it had miscalendered the due date and that responses were expected to be provided within a week, and counsel asked Plaintiffs’ counsel if Plaintiffs would be agreeable to that date. (Mots., Cohen Decls. ¶ 10, Ex. C.) As of the date of filing the motions, no responses had been received. (Mots., Cohen Decls. ¶ 11.) However, Defendant served responses on March 27, 2025. (Mots., Infante Decls. ¶ 16.)

Plaintiffs contend that their motions must be granted because timely responses were not provided, i.e., Defendant has now waived all objections. It is true that the Court may still hear the motions and decide whether the responses are sufficient, and the moving party is not required to meet and confer before filing the motions. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408, 411.) The Court has reviewed the responses and finds that they are code-compliant, Defendant’s counsel’s failure to provide the responses was the result of mistake when Plaintiffs failed to state whether a second extension would be provided, and Defendant had not promised to provide such responses within a week, only that it expected to do so, such that the Court will not conclude that all objections have been waived. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Emigdio Cordova and Teresa Cordova’s Motion to Compel Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.’s Responses to First Set of Form Interrogatories is DENIED as MOOT, Plaintiffs Emigdio Cordova and Teresa Cordova’s Motion to Compel Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.’s Responses to First Set of Special Interrogatories is DENIED as MOOT, Plaintiffs Emigdio Cordova and Teresa Cordova’s Motion to Compel Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.’s Responses to First Set of Requests for Production of Documents is DENIED as MOOT, and Plaintiffs Emigdio Cordova and Teresa Cordova’s Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission to Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Admitted and Conclusively Established is DENIED as MOOT.

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).)

The Court finds that monetary sanctions are not warranted here. While responses were not provided by the initial response date, defense counsel communicated with an expected response date, and rather than seek responses without court intervention, Plaintiffs filed these motions. The declarations show that Defendant was attempting to provide responses. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Emigdio Cordova and Teresa Cordova’s Requests for Monetary Sanctions are DENIED.