Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC02777, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC02777    Hearing Date: April 10, 2024    Dept: 26

MOTION

(CCP § 2030.290, subds. (b), (c), & § 2033.250)

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANT

            Plaintiff I.L.W.U. Credit Union’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set 1) and Motion for Order that Matters and Requests for Admissions Be Deemed Admitted are both GRANTED. Sanctions will be imposed upon Defendant and granted to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,000.00. Both the responses to the Form Interrogatories (Set 1), and the $1,000.00 sanctions are due 30 days from the date of this order. The Requests for Admissions are deemed admitted.  

Background

            This case stems from a loan where money was lent and not paid back. On April 26, 2023, I.L.W.U. Credit Union (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint containing seven causes of action against Andre T. Thomas (Defendant). The Complaint alleges that on September 29, 2021, Defendant took out a loan for a vehicle. (Complaint, ¶ 6.) The loan agreement required that Defendant make monthly payments, however, Defendant has defaulted on those payments, and now Plaintiff seeks to sue for the money owed.

            The motions now before the Court are two discovery motions: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set 1) and (2) Motion for Order That Matters and Requests for Admissions Be Deemed Admitted (the Motions). Both Motions request sanctions and are supported by the Declaration of Bruce P. Needleman (Needleman Decl.) The Motions are unopposed.

Discussion

Legal Standard for a Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories

            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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (b), (c).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP § 2030.290, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served and no meet and confer is required when a party does not respond to discovery requests. 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.)

Legal Standard for a Motion that Requests for Admissions be Deemed Admitted

            Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.250, provides, in pertinent part, that “[w]ithin 30 days after service of the request for admissions . . . the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party.” A motion to deem admitted requests for admissions lies based upon a showing of failure to respond timely. (CCP §2033.280(b); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, disapproved on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983.) Requests for admissions must be deemed admitted where no responses in substantial compliance was served before the hearing. (CCP §2033.280(c).)    

            If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

   (a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:

   (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.

   (2) The party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

(CCP § 2033.280)

Analysis

            The Needleman Decl. states that on December 7, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel propounded discovery of both the Form Interrogatories (Set 1) and the Requests for Admissions on Defendant. (Needleman Decl., ¶ 2.) The deadline for responses was January 11, 2024, however, no responses came, and Plaintiff’s counsel then reached out to meet and confer. (Id. at ¶ 3.) However, as of the date of the Needleman Decl., February 15, 2024, no responses were received. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Therefore, the Motions are granted, and sanctions will be imposed. Plaintiff’s counsel provides the following calculations:

·         Counsel’s rate is $195.00 per hour

·         Counsel spent 2 hours preparing each Motion

·         Counsel anticipates spending 2.5 hours appearing for the Motion and any follow-up.

·         Counsel incurred a $60.00 filing fee

·         In total, counsel requests $937.50 per Motion

            Considering the similarities between the Motions, the Court will impose $1,000.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant, and award them to Plaintiff. 

Conclusion

            Plaintiff I.L.W.U. Credit Union’s Motion to Compel Responses to Dorm Interrogatories (Set 1) and Motion for Order that Matters and Requests for Admissions Be Deemed Admitted are both GRANTED. Sanctions will be imposed upon Defendant and granted to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,000.00. Both the responses to the Form Interrogatories (Set 1), and the $1,000.00 sanctions are due 30 days from the date of this order. The Requests for Admissions are deemed admitted.  

Moving party to give notice.