SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Motions to Compel¿ 

On July 17, 2023, Defendant G&M Oil Company, Inc. (“Defendant”) propounded form interrogatories, set two, and special interrogatories, set two on Plaintiff Brittnee Aguirre (“Plaintiff”). After receiving no responses, defense counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel on August 21, 2023 requesting responses without objections within seven days. To date, Plaintiff has not served responses. Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling responses, without objections, and imposing sanctions.  

As of October 24, 2023, no oppositions have been 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., § 2030.290; 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).)    

Therefore, because the evidence shows Plaintiff was properly served with discovery and failed to respond, and Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to demonstrate otherwise, Defendant’s motions are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to Defendant’s form interrogatories, set two, and special interrogatories, set two, without objections, within twenty (20) days. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a),(b).) 

 

II. Motion to Deem RFAs admitted¿ 

On July 17, 2023, Defendant G&M Oil Company, Inc. (“Defendant”) propounded requests for admissions (“RFAs”), set one, on Plaintiff Brittnee Aguirre (“Plaintiff”). To date, Plaintiff has not served responses. Defendant therefore seeks an order deeming the RFAs admitted and imposing sanctions. The motion is unopposed. 

Where there has been no timely response to a request for admission under CCP § 2033.010, 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 of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants that party relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).)  The court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “unless it 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 of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) 

Plaintiff did not file any opposition to Defendant’s motion, nor has Plaintiff otherwise demonstrated that she has served, before the hearing on the motion, any responses to the RFAs.  Accordingly, Defendant’s RFAs, set one, is deemed admitted against Plaintiff. (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 response to interrogatories, unless a court makes certain findings.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)¿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).) Plaintiff did not file any opposition. However, sanctions may be awarded, even though no opposition was filed pursuant to CRC 3.1348(a). Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,360 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 is awarded a total of $200 for each motion, for a total of $600 in attorney fees. Further, Defendant is awarded three motion filing fees of $60, for a total of $180, as costs.    

Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, jointly and severally. Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $780, within twenty (20) days. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

 

Dated this 6th day of November 2023