SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Melissa Ashley Friedman (“Plaintiff”) propounded (1) form interrogatories, set two, (2) supplemental interrogatories, (3) supplemental request for production of documents, and (4) request for admissions, set one, on defendant William Thomas Sloan (“Defendant”) on January 31, 2024. Plaintiff asserts that verified responses to the outstanding discovery have not been served as of the date of the motion’s filing. Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Defendant to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.  

In opposition, Defendant argues responses to the discovery requests have been served, without objection, and in substantial compliance with the discovery statute. The Court notes that the referred exhibits in defense counsel’s declaration are absent in its entirety.  

In reply, Plaintiff disputes that verified responses had been served. Rather, Plaintiff avers that Defendant served unverified responses that are not in substantial compliance.  

 

II. MOTION TO COMPEL 

For a motion to compel initial 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., §2030.290, §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., § 2030.290, subd. (a); §2031.300, subd. (a).)    

There is no evidence demonstrating Defendant properly served verified responses, without objections, to the outstanding discovery. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore GRANTED.  

Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s (1) form interrogatories, set two, (2) supplemental interrogatories, and (3) supplemental request for documents, without objections, within twenty (20) days. (CCP § 2030.290 (a),(b); §2031.300 (a),(b).) 

 

II. MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 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).)    

Plaintiff propounded requests for admissions (“RFAs”), set one, on Defendant on January 31, 2024. Defense counsel’s declaration fails to attach the referenced exhibit, and Plaintiff disputes that verified responses were served. There is no evidence that any responses in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220 were served before the hearing on the motion.  

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. (CCP §2033.280(b).) Plaintiff’s request for admissions, set one, is deemed admitted against Defendant.   

 

III. SANCTIONS 

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. Defendant fails to justify an hourly rate of $1,000 per hour, and there is no reasonable basis for this motion to have taken 8 hours to prepare.