Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV00252, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00252    Hearing Date: December 8, 2022    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Gilbreath, et al., v. Mroczynski, et al.

CASE NO.:                22SMCV00252 

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Initial Discovery Responses

HEARING DATE:   12/8/2022

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 October 27, 2022, Defendant Mroczynski filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiffs Bryan Gilbreath and Jessica Gilbreath’s respective initial discovery responses to Mroczynski’s first set of discovery, including: (1) Form Interrogatories; (2) Special Interrogatories; (3) Request for Production of Documents; and (4) Requests for Admissions. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition.

            Here, Mroczynski served Plaintiffs with her first set of discovery on July 12, 2022. (Fritsch Decl., Exs. B.) Plaintiffs did not respond to any of the outstanding discovery. (¶ 6.) Mroczynski followed up with Plaintiffs on Sept. 27, 2022. (¶ 7, Exs. D.) Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that they “will be serving discovery responses,” but such responses never came. (¶¶ 8-10.) Given Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to any of the initial discovery requests, Mroczynski’s motions to compel are GRANTED.  Responses are due within 10 days.  As to the Requests for Admissions, those are deemed ADMITTED. 

Monetary sanctions are mandatory, unless the imposition of sanctions would be unjust or the party subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification. (See, e.g., CCP § 2030.290(c).) Plaintiffs have failed to respond and therefore failed to justify their non-response to the discovery.

Mroczynski request $742.50 per motion in sanctions, which account for 2.0 hours of drafting and preparing the motions at issue, 1.5 hours anticipated reviewing oppositions to the motions and for appearance at the hearing at a rate of $195.00 per hour, and eight $60 filing fees. However, there was no opposition. Given the duplicative nature of the motions, and the lack of opposition, the Court shall grant lesser sanctions per motion. Accordingly, Mroczynski’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $645 per motion for a total amount of $2,580.00, inclusive of costs, against Plaintiffs and their counsel of record, jointly and severally. Sanctions to be paid to Mroczynski’s counsel within 30 days.