Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV13098, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13098    Hearing Date: August 3, 2023    Dept: 30

#38
ALVARO LEMUS vs WALMART, INC.
22STCV13098
Motion to Compel Responses for Form Interrogatories
Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories
Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production
Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted

Rulings:   
Motion to Compel Responses for Form Interrogatories is granted.
Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories is granted.
Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production is granted.
As to each of the  motions to compel, Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses, without objection, within 20 days of the issuance of this order.
Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted is granted. The truth of the matters specified in the Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted as to Plaintiff Alvaro Lemus.
Sanctions in the amount of $510 are awarded to moving party and to be paid within 20 days.
Moving party to give notice.

Rationale:

Motions to Compel

If a party to whom interrogatories or a request for production of documents 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, subd. (b); Id., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) 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 or request for production of documents was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Id., § 2031.300, subd. (a).  The sets of interrogatories and request for production of documents were properly served on Plaintiff on May 4, 2023. (Declarations of Colbert in Support of Motions, ¶ 3; Exh. A.) The responses were due on June 12, 2023 per a 1-week extension granted by Defendant. (Decls. Colbert, ¶ 4.) Plaintiff has not served responses. (Decls. Colbert, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to the instant motions.

Motion to Deem Request for Admission Admitted

If a party to whom requests for admissions are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order deeming the truth of the matters specified therein be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) 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 request for admissions was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (See Leach, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 905-906.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)  Defendant served the requests for admission on May 4, 2023. (Decl. Colbert, ¶ 3; Exh. A.) The responses were due on June 12, 2023 per a 1-week extension granted by Defendant. (Decl. Colbert, ¶ 4.) Plaintiff has not served responses. (Decl. Colbert, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to the motion to deem requests for admissions admitted.

Sanctions

The Court declines to award sanctions for the motions to compel because they were unopposed.  The Court does award sanctions in the amount of $510 in connection with the motion to deem requests for admissions admitted which includes two hours and an half hours at the hourly rate of $180/hour, plus filing fee of $60.  Sanctions are unconditionally mandatory in connection with a motion to deem requests for admissions admitted. (Id., § 2033.280(c).)