Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: Huang v. Huang, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Gary Huang’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production
Plaintiff Gary Huang moves to compel responses from defendant Ling Huang to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One). For the following reasons, the motions are granted.
A party may move for an order compelling responses to discovery at any time “[i]f a party to whom [discovery requests] are directed fails to serve a timely response.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b). By failing to serve timely responses, the responding party waives “any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a).
Once a party has failed to serve timely responses to requests for production, the trial court has authority to hear a propounding party's motion to compel responses, regardless of whether a party serves an untimely response. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408 (addressing analogous provisions of section 2030.290). If a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for production, then by operation of law, all objections that it could assert to those requests are waived. Id. Unless that party obtains relief from its waiver, the propounding party is entitled to move for an order compelling the response to which the propounding party is entitled – that is, a response without objection and that substantially complies with the provisions governing the form (§§ 2031.210, 2031.280) and completeness (§ 2031.220) of responses to requests for production. Id.
Defendant’s untimely responses to the form interrogatories and requests for production do not substantially comply with defendant’s obligations under the code. The responses assert general objections, which have been waived. In addition, the responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 15.1 and 50.1 are incomplete. The response to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 does not state facts upon which defendant bases any denial or affirmative defense, and the response to For Interrogatory No. 50.1 does not address the subparts. Defendant Ling Huang shall provide verified, Code-compliant responses, without objections, to plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One) by September 9, 2022.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted. Defendant Ling Huang shall pay sanctions in the amount of $800.00 to plaintiff Gary Huang by September 9, 2022. See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2023.010(d), 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).
Plaintiff to give notice.
Plaintiff Gary Huang’s Motions to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted
Plaintiff Gary Huang moves to deem Requests for Admissions (Set One) to defendant Ling Huang admitted. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(b) provides that where a party to whom requests for admissions are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding 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).” The statute continues: “The court shall make this order, 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.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2033.280(c); St. Mary v. Super. Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778.
Section 2033.220, in turn, provides that each response shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available permits, and each answer shall admit, deny, or specify if and to what extent the responding party lacks information or knowledge sufficient to respond. To make the determination of substantial compliance, the court must evaluate the response “in toto,” rather than based on responses to individual requests. St. Mary, 223 Cal.App.4th at 779-80.
Plaintiff’s motion is granted insofar as defendant Ling Huang’s responses include objections, which defendant waived by failing to serve timely responses. See id. § 2033.280(a). Defendant’s responses do not moot plaintiff’s motion. See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408. If a party fails to serve a timely response to discovery requests, then by operation of law, all objections that it could assert to those requests are waived. Id. Unless that party obtains relief from its waiver, the propounding party is entitled to move for an order compelling the response to which the propounding party is entitled—that is, a response without objection and that substantially complies with the provisions governing the form and completeness of discovery responses. Id. Accordingly, defendant Ling Huang is ordered to serve responses to plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions (Set One) without objections by September 9, 2022.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted. Defendant Ling Huang shall pay sanctions in the amount of $400.00 to plaintiff Gary Huang by September 9, 2022. See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2023.010(d), 2033.280(c).
Plaintiff to give notice.