Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2021-01224027, Date: 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Marisol G. Arriaga (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order: (1) compelling Defendant D Park Professional Dental Corporation (“Defendant”) to serve verified responses, without objections, to her Form Interrogatories-Employment, Set One; Form Interrogatories-General, Set One; and Special Interrogatories, Set One, on the grounds that Defendant has failed to timely respond and waived all objections; (2) deeming the truth of all matters specified in Requests for Admission, Set One admitted and conclusively established for all purposes; and (3) imposing monetary sanctions against Defendant due to Defendant’s refusal to provide responses.

When a party fails to serve timely responses to interrogatories, that party waives any objection to the interrogatories and the propounding party may move to compel responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a).)  When a party fails to timely respond to requests for admission, that party waives any objections to the requests and the requesting party may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.  (Id., § 2033.280(b).) 

When a party has served responses to interrogatories or requests for admission, the propounding party may move to compel further responses.  (Id., §§ 2030.300(a), 2033.290(a).) 

Here, Plaintiff cites to sections 2030.290 and 2033.280 in support of her Motions.  However, as Plaintiff acknowledges, Defendant served responses to the disputed discovery prior to the filing of these Motions.  (See Declarations of Laura Theriault, Exs. A.)  Thus, Plaintiff’s Motions seek further responses from Defendant and should be pursuant to sections 2030.300(a) and 2033.290(a), in which case Plaintiff must file a meet and confer declaration showing a reasonable and good faith attempt to reach an informal resolution of the issues.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b), 2033.290(b).)  Plaintiff has offered no evidence that she attempted to meet and confer with Defendant after Defendant’s responses were served on May 27, 2022.  Plaintiff could not have made a reasonable and good faith attempt to reach an informal resolution of the issues raised by these Motions before receiving Defendant’s discovery responses.  Because Plaintiff failed to meet and confer with Defendant upon receipt of Defendant’s responses, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to adequately meet and confer before bringing these Motions. 

Moreover, Defendant states in its Oppositions that supplemental responses to the disputed discovery were served on September 21, 2022.  (Declarations of Wil J. Rios, ¶ 5.)  Thus, Plaintiff’s Motions are MOOT.

Given the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motions are DENIED. 

Plaintiff to give notice.