SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. MOTION TO COMPEL 

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Pacific Mechanical Contractors, erroneously sued as Pacific Mechanical Contractor, (“PMC”) served (1) form interrogatories, set one, and (2) special interrogatories, set one, on plaintiff Eduardo Galeno (“Plaintiff”) on November 15, 2022. Additionally, PMC served form interrogatories, set two, on Plaintiff on January 27, 2023. After providing Plaintiff with an extension for set one of discovery up to January 13, 2023, Plaintiff did not properly email the responses until January 18, 2023, and without verifications. In terms of the second set of discovery, PMC agreed to an extension to March 30, 2023. On March 30, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated they would file a Request for Dismissal. However, PMC has not been dismissed, and Plaintiff has not provided any verified response to either set one or set two of discovery. PMC therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the outstanding discovery and pay monetary sanctions. 

As of March 20, 2024, the motion is unopposed. 

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. §2030.290; 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   

Although Plaintiff served responses containing primarily factual responses with some objections, they were untimely and unverified. Because Plaintiff did not oppose the motion, Plaintiff presumably concedes to PMC’s contention that they were untimely served notwithstanding the proof of service date. The failure 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).) Therefore, PMC’s motion is GRANTED.  

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verifications/verified responses, without objections, to PMC’s (1) form interrogatories, set one, (2) form interrogatories, set two, and (3) special interrogatories, set one, within twenty (20) days. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290 (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).)   

PMC propounded requests for admissions (“RFAs”), set one, on Plaintiff on November 15, 2022, and a second set of RFAs on January 27, 2023. After PMC granted Plaintiff’s requests for extensions, Plaintiff served unverified responses to the RFAs, set one. An unverified response is tantamount to no response at all. (Melendrez v. Superior Court (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1348.) Further, no responses were served for the RFAs, set two. 

 Because there is no evidence Plaintiff has served verified responses on PMC prior to the hearing, PMC’s unopposed motion to deem admitted (1) RFAs, set one, and (2) RFAs, set two, against Plaintiff is GRANTED. (CCP §2033.280(b).) 

 

III. SANCTIONS 

Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a responses, unless a court makes certain findings.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., 2031.300(c).)¿ Plaintiff did not file any opposition. 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 §§ 2030.290(c) , 2033.280(c).) PMC requests $1,504.65 for each motion. 

PMC is awarded two hours for each motion, and one hour to appear at the hearing (awarded only once), at the requested rate of $185 per hour for a total of $925 in attorney’s fees. Further, PMC is awarded two motion filing fees of $61.65, for a total of $123.30 as costs.      

Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record, jointly and severally. Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to PMC, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $1,048.30, within twenty (20) days. 

 

IV. ADDITIONAL FILING FEE 

The Court notes that PMC 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, PMC is ordered to pay one additional filing fee. This ruling will be final only upon proof of payment of the filing fee.