Judge Mark A. Young, Case 20STCV03997 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 20STCV03997, Date: 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV03997 Hearing Date: March 17, 2023 Dept: M

CASE NO.: 20STCV03997

MOTION: Motion to Compel Initial Discovery Responses

HEARING DATE: 3/17/2023

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

On February 23, 2023, Plaintiff Janine M. Yoder filed four motions to compel initial discovery responses from Defendant Mwanzo Mallard as to 1) form interrogatories; 2) special interrogatories; 3) requests for production of documents and 4) deem matters admitted. Plaintiff requests $1,900.00 in sanctions. On March 6, 2023, Mallard filed four oppositions.

Plaintiff asserts that she served Mallard with the above sets of discovery (Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One)). (King Decl., ¶ 4.) The proofs of service state these discovery requests were served on Mallard’s counsel by electronic mail. “A person represented by counsel, who has appeared in an action or proceeding, shall accept electronic service of a notice or document that may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile transmission.” (CCP § 1010.6(b)(2).) However, Mallard has not appeared in this action via counsel because Mallard has not made a general appearance. Mallard has only made special appearances when moving to quash service of summons. The Court granted both motions to quash. While Plaintiff has since filed a new proof of service of summons on Mallard, Mallard still has not made a general appearance via counsel. Therefore, Mallard is not required to accept email service. Accordingly, the discovery and motions were not properly served.

Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED.