Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV00044, Date: 2025-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00044    Hearing Date: March 6, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS

            Plaintiffs Andrew Witt and Greta Witt (“Plaintiffs”) move to compel responses from Defendant Sunshine Realty Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) to Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROG”) and Request for Production, set one (“RPD”).  Plaintiffs also move for an order deeming admitted the matters in the Requests for Admission, set one (“RFA”). 

            Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  Defendant opposes the motions and Plaintiffs reply.

LEGAL STANDARDS

1.     Interrogatories

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed 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 the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (a)-(b).) 

2.     Requests for Admission

             Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom requests or admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . .  [t]he 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[.]”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)  Where a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, 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.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

3.     Requests for Production

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.300, subd. (a), “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (a) The 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 under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Where a party fails to respond to demands for production, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) “Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original response to it on the party making the demand . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).)

ANALYSIS

1.     Discovery Requests

Plaintiff electronically served Defendant with the RFP, FROG and RFA on March 28, 2024, making the responses due May 1, 2024.  (Westlund Decl. ¶ 3 and Ex. 1.)  No objections were made or extensions requested prior to that deadline.  (Westlund Decl. ¶ 4.)  As of the filing of the motions, Plaintiffs had not received responses from Defendant.  (Ibid.)

Defendant opposes, explaining there was some confusion or miscommunication in the course of transferring the matter from the original handling attorney to current attorney, but that Defendant agrees to provide discovery responses.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to timely serve responses to FROG, RPD, and RFA, and grants Plaintiff’s motions to compel FROG and RPD, and deems admitted the RFA. 

2.     Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions for each of the three motions (FROG, RPD, and RFA) for attorney time spent at the discounted hourly rate of $675.  (Westlund Decl. ¶ 6.)   

Defendant opposes the request for monetary sanctions, on the grounds that the failure to respond to discovery was not willful, but inadvertent.

Notwithstanding, the Court finds Defendant’s failure to timely respond to the discovery requests to constitute misuses of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d); 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c); 2033.280, subd. (c).) 

Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $4050, which represents 6 hours of attorney time to prepare the moving and reply papers and attend the hearing, at $675 per hour.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to the FROG and RPD per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.  As such, the Court orders Defendant to serve verified code-compliant responses to the FROG and RPD, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in the RFA per Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, and deems admitted the matters specified in the RFA propounded to Plaintiff.

Further, the Court orders Defendant to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $4050, to Plaintiff, by and through counsel for Plaintiff, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

            Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

DATED:  March 6, 2025                                                        ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court