Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 2022-01264673, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Motions to Compel Discovery

Plaintiff Gordon S. Barienbrock’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories (set one) and motion to deem as admitted requests for admissions (set one) are taken OFF CALENDAR as moot.

The court ORDERS that Defendant Ryan Martin Boyajian pay to Plaintiff Gordon S. Barienbrock sanctions in the amount of $2,500 (5 hours x $500 per hour in reasonable attorney’s fees) within 30 days of service of the notice of ruling.

Plaintiff Gordon S. Barienbrock moves to compel Defendant Ryan Martin Boyajian to respond to form interrogatories (set one) and to have deemed as admitted requests for admission (set one).

Compelling Responses to Interrogatories and Deeming Matters as Admitted

When a party properly propounds interrogatories and the party receiving the interrogatories fails to respond, “[t]he party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)

In addition, when a party properly propounds requests for admission and the party receiving the requests fails to respond, “[t]he requesting 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 . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

The court is required to grant this order, “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 Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Defendant asserts and Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant served verified responses to the discovery requests on 12/21/2022.  The motion to compel responses to interrogatories and the motion to deem matters as admitted are therefore moot.

Sanctions

The Civil Procedure Code requires the court to impose monetary sanctions against a party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses to interrogatories “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c).)

The Civil Procedure Code also states that “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” a motion that the genuineness of documents and the truth of matters be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Defendant argues that he did not initially provide responses because he believed the case was settled. However, Defendant could have confirmed with Plaintiff that the matter had been resolved and that there was no need to respond to the discovery requests, but Defendant failed to do so.  Defendant has not shown that he acted with substantial justification or that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant’s counsel, in addition to Defendant. Sanctions against counsel generally “require a finding the ‘attorney advis[ed] that [sanctionable] conduct.’” (Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 261.)  Here, there is insufficient evidence of improper conduct on the part of counsel.

Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.