Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV09984, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV09984    Hearing Date: October 13, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 13, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(3) Motions to Compel Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Defendant My Management Co., Inc.

Responding Party: None

T/R:   DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY ARE GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES TO THE SUBJECT DISCOVERY, WITHOUT OBJECTION, WITHIN 15 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $757.50

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

            The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it. . .  [t]he party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. . . .  The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.”  (CCP § 2031.300(a)–(b).) When timely responses to interrogatories are not received, “[t]he party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  (CCP § 2030.290(b).) If a party fails to provide a timely response to a request for admission (“RFAs”), the party waives any objection to the requests.  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(a).)  Moreover, “[t]he requesting 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….”  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(b).) 

            Defendant My Management Co., Inc. moves to compel responses to FIs, sets one SIs, set one, and RPDs, set one, from Plaintiff Tatsuya Kawamura. Defendant served discovery on June 17, 2022. Responses were due on July 22, 2022. As of the filing of the motions, Defendant has not received responses. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion to show that responses have been served. The motions are GRANTED.

            Defendant seeks $757.50 in sanctions for each motion. As the motions are largely duplicative, the Court will allow $757.50 in total sanctions for all three motions.