I. MOTIONS TO COMPEL & DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED 

A. Background  

Plaintiff Francisco Elizarraras Ortiz ("Plaintiff”) served set one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for production of documents (“RPDs”), and requests for admissions (“RFAs”), on defendant Access Services (“Access”) on December 7, 2023. After receiving no responses, Plaintiff requested responses without objections. Thereafter, defense counsel requested an extension to respond, which Plaintiff would grant provided responses were served without objections. After multiple extensions, defense counsel served objection only responses. Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Access to serve verified responses, without objections, to his initial discovery and for his RFAs, set one, to be deemed admitted against it. 

In opposition, Access argues the motions are moot because substantive responses with signed verifications were served on May 22, 2024.  

In reply, Plaintiff contends the motions are not moot because the responses contain objections despite Access having waived the right to object, and that Plaintiff is entitled to monetary sanctions.   

B. Discussion & Conclusion 

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), CCP § 2031.300, subd. (a), and CCP § 2033.280, subd. (a).) It is undisputed that responses were untimely served. Access did not move for relief from the waiver of objections, and therefore objections remain waived. However, it appears that verified substantive responses were served, notwithstanding the inclusion of waived objections. Therefore, the motion to compel initial discovery responses is moot.  

In terms of the request for admissions, the responses are in substantial compliance with section 2033.220. (CCP § 2033.280(c).) Even though it includes objections that have been waived, the substantive portions in themselves are compliant. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to deem RFAs, set one, admitted against Access is similarly moot.  

II. SANCTIONS 

Plaintiff requests $1,250 in monetary sanctions for each motion. 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).)  Further, it is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction 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).) 

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.)          

Therefore, Plaintiff is awarded 1 hour for each motion at a reduced rate of $250 per hour, for a total of $1,000 as attorney’s fees. 

Sanctions are imposed against Access and its attorney of record, jointly and severally. Defendant Access and/or its counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $1,000, within twenty (20) days. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 5th day of June 2024