I. MOTIONS TO COMPEL & DEEM RFAS ADMITTED 

Plaintiff Sally Juarez ("Plaintiff”) propounded form interrogatories, set two, special interrogatories, set three, and request for production of documents (RPDs), set three, and requests for admission (RFAs), set two, on defendant Oji Holdings, LLC, (“Oji”). After granting Oji’s request for a three-week extension to serve responses, Plaintiff avers that it has not served responses as of the motion filing date. Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Oji to respond, without objections, to the outstanding interrogatories and RPDs, seeks an order to deem the RFAs, set two admitted against Oji, and for Oji to pay sanctions.   

Oji opposes the motion, arguing that it served verified responses to all the outstanding discovery, without objections and in substantial compliance with its discovery obligations, on February 22, 2024. Plaintiff replies that some of the responses to the special interrogatories are not in substantial compliance because it is evasive or contrary to testimony of Oji’s person most qualified.  

For the purposes of this motion, the responses are sufficient. The Court finds that the motion to compel and motion to deem RFAs admitted moot in light of the responses served on Plaintiff prior to the hearing. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.) Plaintiff may address any contentions she has of the sufficiency of the responses on a motion to compel further, subject to the statutory timing and IDC requirements. 

The only remaining issue are sanctions.  

II. SANCTIONS 

It is undisputed that responses were untimely served. Plaintiff requests $2,311.50 in monetary sanctions against Oji for each motion to compel and for the motion to deem RFAs admitted. Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response, unless a court makes certain findings.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) Additionally, where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  

However, 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.) Because responses were served late, sanctions are warranted, but not to the full amount requested.  

Plaintiff is awarded $675 for the three motions total as attorney’s fees. Plaintiff is further awarded three motion filing fees of $61.50, for a total of $184.50 as costs.  

Sanctions are imposed against Oji and Oji’s counsel of record, jointly and severally. Oji and/or its counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $859.50, within twenty (20) days. 

III. ADDITIONAL FILING FEE 

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a single motion for what should have been two separate motions as to the motions to compel form interrogatories and special interrogatories. Combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Filing fees are jurisdictional and it is mandatory for court clerks to demand and receive them. (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to pay one additional filing fee. This ruling will be final only upon proof of payment of the filing fee. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 20th day of March 2024