Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV06062, Date: 2024-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV06062    Hearing Date: September 20, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Can Capital Inc. v. Breaking Barriers Developmentally Disabled Services, et al.

CASE NO.:                23SMCV06062

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Initial Discovery Responses

HEARING DATE:   9/20/2024

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. The party only needs to show that a set of interrogatories were 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 (“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 Can Capital Inc. moves to compel initial discovery responses from Defendants Benjamin Sarcadi and Breaking Barriers Developmentally Disabled Services as to their respective Form Interrogatories, Sets One, and to deem matters admitted as to their respective Requests for Admissions, Sets One.

On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff served on Defendant Sarcadi and Breaking Barriers, via counsel, certain written discovery including Form Interrogatories and Requests for Admission- Set One. (Katz Decl., ¶ 4, Exs. A.) As to the RFAs, Plaintiff provides that following several extensions, Defendants failed to respond at all to the RFAs. (Id., ¶¶ 5-12.) However, as to the FROGs, Defendants provided responses. Defendants provided objections-only responses to the FROGs. (Id., Ex. E.) The Court concurs that the objections are likely unmeritorious and in bad faith, as the objections were waived. The fact remains that Defendants have responded, and thus the proper motion would be for a further response. Thus, the motion to compel cannot be granted as to the FROGs.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to compel initial responses to the FROGs is DENIED, and the motions to deem matters admitted is GRANTED. The RFA’s are deemed admitted.  Mandatory sanctions are imposed in the noticed amount of $840.00, jointly and several against Defendant and its counsel, payable within 30 days.