Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV05936, Date: 2024-12-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23SMCV05936 Hearing Date: December 13, 2024 Dept: M
CASE NO.: 23SMCV05936
MOTION: Motion
to Compel Initial Discovery Responses
HEARING DATE: 12/13/2024
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
Plaintiff Jane Doe moves to compel initial
discovery responses as to her first set of discovery served upon Defendant
Michael Davis.
Plaintiff demonstrates that on September
27, 2024, she served Defendant with her first set of discovery, including requests
for production of documents (RPD), requests for admissions (RFA), and form
interrogatories (FROG). (Ex. B.) On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff served
special interrogatories (SROG) and amended FROGs on Defendant. (Ex. C.)
Defendant did not respond to the RFAs,
FROGs, or SROGs. (Doe Decl.) Plaintiff therefore meets her burden as to those
items of discovery. The Court will accordingly order initial discovery
responses from Defendant as to the SROGs and FROGs, without objection, within
10 days. The RFAs will be deemed admitted against Defendant unless a proposed response to the
requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220
is presented at the hearing.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to
provide any “verified” responses to the RPDs. Plaintiff presents Defendant’s
responses to her first set of RPDs. (Doe Decl., Ex. D.) Defendant objected to
the RPDs, asserting that the requests were overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and
that it seeks documents that no longer exist and relate to matters that
occurred over 30 years ago. (Id.) No
verification would be required for an objection-only response. (CCP § 2031.250(a).)
Therefore, Plaintiff’s recourse was to file a motion to compel further responses
as to the RPDs. The instant motion fails to comply with the additional
requirements for such motions. (CCP §§ 2016.040, 2031.310(c), (b)(2);
CRC, Rule 3.1345.)
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to the RPDs, and
GRANTED as to the FROGs, SROGs, and RFAs. Sanctions are denied.