SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

1. Motions to Compel 

Defendant David Koroshec (“Koroshec”) propounded set one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents (“RPDs”) on Plaintiff Gabriel Diaz (“Diaz”) on May 2, 2023. Plaintiff Diaz’s responses were due on or before June 3, 2023. After attempting to meet and confer, no responses were served to date.  Defendant Koroshec therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff Diaz to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions. Any opposition was due on or before August 23, 2023; none were filed. 

For a motion to compel discovery responses, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 906.) Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)  A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)   

Therefore, because the evidence shows Plaintiff Diaz was properly served with discovery and failed to respond, Defendant Koroshec’s motions are GRANTED. Plaintiff Diaz is ordered to serve verified responses to set one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs without objections, within twenty (20) days. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(a),(b).) 

 

2. Motion To Deem Admitted 

Under Code of Civil Procedure 2033.280(b), failure to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner allows the requesting party to “move for an order that…the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted” by the party that failed to respond.  The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court, “unless [the court] 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)   

Defendant Koroshec propounded requests for admissions (“RFAs”), set one, on Plaintiff Diaz on May 2, 2023. The evidence shows that Defendant properly served RFAs, set one, upon Plaintiff Diaz and Plaintiff Diaz failed to respond. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any responses were served before the hearing on the motion.  

Therefore, Defendant Koroshec’s unopposed motion is granted.  (CCP §2033.280(b).)  Defendant Koroshec’s RFAs, set one, is deemed admitted against Plaintiff Diaz.  

 

3. Sanctions 

Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless a court makes certain findings.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)¿ Plaintiff did not file any oppositions. However, sanctions may be awarded, even though no opposition is filed pursuant to CRC 3.1348(a). Further, “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”  (CCP § 2033.280(c).) Defendant requests $661.65 for each motion.  

A court has discretion to award sanctions that are “suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks” but they should not be punitive in nature or levied for the purposes of punishing an offending party. (Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545.) Defendant Koroshec is awarded $200 per motion, for a total of $800 in attorney fees. Further, Defendant Koroshec is awarded four motion filing fees of $61.65, for a total of $246.60, as costs. 

 Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff Diaz and his counsel, jointly and severally. Plaintiff Diaz and/or his counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant Koroshec, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $1046.60, within twenty (20) days.