Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 19SMCV00603, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV00603    Hearing Date: March 24, 2023    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Snukal, et al., v. 926 Broadway LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                19SMCV00603

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Initial Discovery Responses

HEARING DATE:   3/24/2023

Legal Standard

Where there has been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 inspection demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. 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. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of "good cause" is required.

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. (CCP § 2030.290(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 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.) 

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(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 under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). “Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions. Rather, the propounder of the RFA must ‘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’ under § 2023.010 et seq.” (CCP, § 2033.280(b).) The court “shall” grant the motion to deem RFA 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.” (CCP, § 2033.280(c).) 

Analysis

            Defendants 926 Broadway LLC and Fortuna Asset Management (“Defendants”) bring this motion to compel Plaintiffs Daniel J. Snukal ("D. Snukal"), Robert M. Snukal ("R. Snukal"), Mark D. Mittleman ("Mittleman") and T.C.P. II. LLC ("TCP") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") to respond to Defendants’ first set of form and special interrogatories, requests for admission and requests for the production of documents.

            Defendants’ motion is untimely.  On March 28, 2022, the Court vacated the April 4, 2022, trial date.  At that time, discovery in this matter was closed and the Court did not order either fact or expert discovery reopened pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050.  Fact discovery had closed on March 4, 2022, and expert discovery had closed on March 21, 2022.  Code of Civil Procedure section 599 does not reopen already closed discovery dates, but only serves to automatically “extend any deadlines that have not already passed . . ..” 

      Since discovery propounded by Defendants on February 6, 2023, was untimely, the motion is DENIED.