Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV02663, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV02663    Hearing Date: June 28, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Cruz v. Trader Joe’s Co., et al.

CASE NO.:                23SMCV02663

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Initial Discovery Responses

HEARING DATE:   6/28/2024

Legal Standard

 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.) 

Where there has been no timely response to a CCP 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. 

Pursuant to CCP 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 

Plaintiff Emanuel Luis Cruz moves to compel Defendant Granstoly, LLC’s verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s: 1) Form Interrogatories, Set One; 2) Special Interrogatories, Set One; and 3) Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff also moves to deem matters admitted as to Requests for Admissions, Set One, against Defendant. For each motion, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $590.00 in reasonable costs and attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff demonstrates that the subject discovery was duly served on Defendant. On November 2, 2023, Plaintiff served written discovery upon both defendants, including form and special interrogatories, requests for production of documents and requests for admission. (Elliott Decl., Exs. 1.) Plaintiff’s counsel inquired with defense counsel regarding the responses in April and May 2024. (Id., Exs. 2, 4.) Defense counsel transmitted Trader Joe’s discovery responses but indicated that Granstoly had been difficult to communicate with, and that they would follow up. (Id. Ex. 3.) Despite this representation, Plaintiff has not received any verified answers to discovery.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant Granstoly is ordered to provide verified responses, without objection, within 10 days. The requests for admissions are deemed admitted.  Sanctions are imposed in the notice amount of $590.00 per motion, for a total sanction of $1,770.00, against Defendant Granstoly. Sanctions are to be paid in 30 days.