Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 22-01257215, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

1) Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories

2) Motion to Compel Production

3) Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admission

Before the Court are three discovery motions, all brought by Defendant Anaheim Vineyards Owner LLC (“Defendant”).

Defendant’s first Motion seeks to compel Plaintiff Myla Rivera (“Plaintiff”0 to provide responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two.  The unopposed Motion is GRANTED; Plaintiff is ordered to provide Code-compliant responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, within 20 days of notice of this Order.  Plaintiff shall produce all responsive documents on the same date.

Defendant’s second Motion asks the Court to deem its Requests for Admissions, Set Two, admitted, based on Plaintiff’s failure to respond.  The Motion is GRANTED; the Requests for Admission are hereby deemed admitted.

Defendant’s third Motion is to compel Plaintiff to provide initial responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two (in which Defendant requested only a response to Form Interrogatory 17.1).  Given the Court’s ruling on the Motion to deem the Requests for Admission admitted, this Motion is MOOT.

Plaintiff is ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the total sum of $1,050 for all three motions within 30 days of notice of this Order.

Facts

On March 8, 2023, Defendant propounded three sets of discovery on Plaintiff:  Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two; Requests for Admissions, Set Two; and Form Interrogatories, Set Two.  Each was properly served on Plaintiff’s former counsel. (Zalewski Dec. ¶2, Exhibit “A” to each Motion.)

The responses to these requests were due on or before April 11, 2023, and that deadline was extended to April 14, 2023, by agreement with Plaintiff’s former counsel. (Zalewski Dec. ¶2.)

Plaintiff did not serve verified responses, or any responses, on or before April 14, 2023. As of the date of filing these motions, Defendant has not received responses. (Zalewski Dec. ¶ 6 to each Motion.)

Requests for Admissions

A propounding party may ask the court for an order that deems the matters contained in the requests for admission admitted if the receiving party fails to respond to the requests for admission. CCP § 2033.280(b). The court shall grant the order unless it finds that the party to whom the requests were directed has served responses in conformance with CCP section 2033.220 before the hearing on the motion. CCP § 2033.280(c).

Because this motion deals with a failure to respond, rather than inadequate responses, no meet and confer is required. (St. Mary v. Sup.Ct. (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 777-778.)  Moreover, unlike motions to compel under other discovery provisions, there is no time limit on a motion to have matters deemed admitted. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1584 (disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983.))

The court “shall” grant the motion “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 … in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220”. (CCP § 2033.280(c) (emphasis added); St. Mary v. Sup.Ct. (Schellenberg), supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at 778.)

Here, the discovery was properly served and there was no response. Thus, the Motion is granted.

Requests for Production of Documents

Where there has been no timely response to a CCP section 2031.010 document demand, the first thing the demanding party must do is to seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300.) For failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. (See CCP § 2031.300.) Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2018) ¶ 8:1487.)

Here, the discovery was properly served and there was no response. Thus, the Motion is GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.