Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV34890, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34890    Hearing Date: March 29, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 29, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Defendants Lil Wave Financial, Inc. and Josef Begelfer

Responding Party: None

T/R:   DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY IS GRANTED AS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.

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

DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED IN THE REDUCED AMOUNT OF $1,800.00.

DEFENDANTS 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, 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).) 

            Defendants move to compel responses to RFAs, SIs, FIs and RPDs from Plaintiff. There is no statutory provision for compelling responses to RFAs. Instead, when a party fails to respond to RFAs, the propounding party may move for an order deeming RFAs admitted by the responding party. Defendants do not request this here. The motion as to RFAs is DENIED.

Defendants served the subject discovery by mail on December 16, 2022. Responses were due on January 31, 2023. As of the filing of the motions, Defendants have not received responses. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion to show that responses have been served. The motion as to SIs, FIs and RPDs is GRANTED.

            Defendants’ requests for sanctions are GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,800.00.