Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 23GDCV00477, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Under CCP § 2031.300, “if a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it,” that party “waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product...” Under subdivision (b), “the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.”

In this case, document production demands have been directed to defendants and defendants have failed to provide timely responses. Plaintiff appropriately has moved for an order to compel. Accordingly, defendants have waived all objections, and they are ordered to respond.

Under CCP § 2033.280, a party who fails to serve a timely response to requests for admissions “waives any objection to the requests….” In addition, the 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, as well as for a monetary sanction....” CCP § 2033.280(b). The Code specifies that “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admissions have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the request for admissions that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” CCP § 2033.280(c).

In this case, requests for admissions were served on responding parties on June 6, 2023. Moving party extended various extensions of time to respond, with the last extension being to February 18, 2025. Responding parties did not request or obtain a further extension. No responses had been served by the time the motion was filed on March 10, 2025. No verified responses have been submitted to the court showing they have been served prior to the hearing date. Defendants have failed to serve timely responses, and have therefore waived all objections. Plaintiff has filed a noticed motion requesting an order that the requests be deemed admitted as truth. Unless verified responses that are in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220 are served before the hearing, the court must grant the motion.

“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 admissions necessitated this motion.”

With respect to document demands, under CCP section 2031.300(c), “the court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling…”

CCP § 2023.010 provides that misuse of the discovery process includes “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where there has been such conduct, under CCP § 2023.030(a), “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct....If a monetary sanction is authorized” by the statute, “ the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP § 2023.030(a).

The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice. Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990, 2nd Dist.) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436.

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

In this case, defendants failed to timely and appropriately respond to authorized methods of discovery and plaintiff has provided evidence that plaintiff has incurred expenses as a result of the conduct.

The sanctions sought include one hour at $400 per hour to prepare each of the replies, when there are no oppositions, so the replies should be brief. The sanctions also include one hour in each motion to appear at the hearing, when the motions will be heard together. The sanctions will be reduced accordingly as follows: 3 attorney hours at $400.00 per hour to include a one hour meet and confer for both motions for $1,200 in attorney fees and 3 attorney hours for the second motion to include a 1 hour appearance for both motions at the hearing for $1,200 in attorney fees.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants Artavaz Abedi and M&M Liquor Market & Deli, Inc. to Provide Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents Set One is GRANTED.

Defendants Artavaz Abedi and M&M Liquor Market & Deli, Inc. are ordered to serve verified responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Propounded by Plaintiff, Set One, without objection, and to permit inspection and copying within 10 days.

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $1,200.00 (3 hours @ $400 per hour) [5 hours requested] plus $60.00 filing fee [Amount Requested $2,060], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Orlando Garcia and against defendants Artavaz Abedi and M&M Liquor Market & Deli, Inc. and their attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. CCP §§ 2031.300(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a), and CRC Rule 3.1030(a).

Defendants Artavaz Abedi and M&M Liquor Market & Deli, Inc. have failed to serve timely responses substantially complying with the provisions of CCP § 2033.220 prior to the hearing on this motion. The Court therefore orders that all matters specified in Request for Admissions, Propounded by Plaintiff, Set One, are deemed admitted as true, pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c).

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $ 1,200( 3 hours @ $400 per hour) [5 hours requested] plus $60.00 filing fee [Amount Requested $2,060], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Orlando Garcia and against defendants Artavaz Abedi and M&M Liquor Market & Deli, Inc. and their attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. CCP §§ 2033.280(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a), and CRC Rule 3.1030(a).

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. Department D is now requiring either live or VIDEO appearances, not audio appearances. Please note that in the case of video appearances, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.