Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV06025, Date: 2024-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV06025    Hearing Date: June 6, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           California Lawyers Group LLP v. Durst, et al.

CASE NO.:                23SMCV06025

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Initial Discovery Responses

HEARING DATE:   6/6/2024

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 California Lawyers Group LLC moves to compel Defendant Etehad Law APC’s initial discovery responses as to their Demand for Production of Documents, Set One and Form Interrogatories, Set One; and to deem matters admitted as to their Requests for Admissions, Set One. In opposition, Defendant presents code-compliant responses to the outstanding discovery. Accordingly, the motions to compel are MOOT.

Sanctions are still mandatory. The Court must sanction any party that unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response, “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (See, e.g., CCP, § 2030.290(c).) However, as to the requests for admissions, sanctions are mandatory against the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated the motion, without exception. (CCP § 2033.280.)

Plaintiff requests sanctions of $1,620.00 against Defendant and counsel of record. (See Brown Decl., para. 6 [2.5 hours at $650/hr.].) Defendant argues that it should not be subject to sanctions because Etehad Law and CLG agreed that Etehad Law did not have to respond to CLG’s discovery until after this Court ruled on the contemplated demurrer. (Smith Decl., paras. 4-5.) Counsel contends that during meet and confer efforts, and prior to the filing of this motion, Mr. Smith advised Plaintiff’s counsel that he was leaving Etehad Law and was moving to a new law firm. (Id.) Further, during that call, counsel “agreed that Etehad Law did not have to respond to Mr. Brown’s outstanding discovery served on Etehad Law until the Court ruled on Etehad Law’s demurrer. Etehad Law filed its demurrer on April 4, 2024, with the hearing on July 30, 2024.” (Smith Decl., Para. 4.) Counsel also explains that he did not receive any meet and confer email regarding the instant motions, since opposing counsel emailed him at his prior Etehad Law email address, and did not copy co-counsel as had been done on prior occasions. (Id.)

In light of this unrebutted evidence, the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Therefore, the Court will exercise its discretion to deny the sanctions requests as to the interrogatories and production of documents. However, there is no such exception as to the deem admitted motion. As Defendant failed to respond to the requests for admissions, sanctions are still mandatory. The Court will therefore impose a proportionate sanction, in the amount of $601.67. Sanctions are imposed against Defendant and its counsel of record, jointly and severally. Sanctions are to be paid within 30 days.