Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV02923, Date: 2024-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV02923    Hearing Date: September 13, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Adamyan v. O’Gara Coach Co. LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                23SMCV02923

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Initial Discovery Responses

HEARING DATE:   9/13/2024

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 

Defendant Automobili Lamborghini America, LLC (“ALA”) moves to compel responses to ALA’s First Set of Form and Special Interrogatories, and Inspection Demand, and that ALA’s First Set of Requests for Admission be deemed admitted (collectively, the “Subject Discovery”). ALA also requests $1,680.00 per motion in monetary sanctions.

On April 24, 2024, ALA served the Subject Discovery on Plaintiff. (Kim Decl. ¶ 2, Exs. A.) The last day to serve responses was June 12, 2024. (Kim Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff never requested an extension to respond before the due date and failed to serve timely responses to the Requests. (Kim Decl. ¶ 3.) On July 31, 2024, ALA requested, among other things, Plaintiff to provide responses to the outstanding discovery without objections by August 9, 2024. (Kim Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. B.) Plaintiff did not respond to the letter or provide responses. (Kim Decl., ¶ 5.)

Defendant demonstrated proper service of the Subject Discovery, and Plaintiff’s failure to respond by the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED. Mandatory sanctions are imposed in the reduced, total amount of $1,800.00, inclusive of costs, against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, Mgdesyan Law Firm. Sanctions are to be paid within 30 days.  Further responses are ordered within 10 days, and the admissions are deemed admitted.