Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2022-01267686, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Oscar Daniel Benitez Gonzalez (“Defendant”) moves for an order (1) compelling Plaintiffs Juan Valencia, Cruz Mata and Lucina Perez Serrato to serve responses to Defendant’s first set of Requests for Production; (2) deeming the truth of all matters specified in Plaintiff’s first set of Requests for Admission as admitted; (3) compelling Plaintiffs Juan Valencia and Cruz Mata to serve responses to Defendant’s first set of Special Interrogatories and Form Interrogatories; and (4) imposing monetary sanctions.

Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300 state that if a party to whom interrogatories or a demand for inspection “fails to serve a timely response to it,” the party waives any and all objections and the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to the interrogatory or demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(a)-(b), 2031.300(a)-(b).)  These sections also state “the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion . . . 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(c), 2031.300(c).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(b) provides that, when a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admission, “[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, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”  Subdivision (c) provides that the Court shall make 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.”

Defendant served the written discovery on Valencia, Mata and Serrato on December 6, 2022. (Boucher Decls., ¶¶ 3-4 (Rogs); ¶ 3 (RFPs, RFAs).) Valencia, Mata and Serrato failed to serve any responses.  (Id., ¶ 5 (Rogs) ¶ 4 (RFAs).) 

In light of the above, Defendant’s unopposed Motions are GRANTED.  Valencia and Mata are ORDERED to serve verified responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production Set One within 20 days. Serrato is ORDERED to serve verified responses, without objections, to Requests for Production Set One within 20 days. The matters in Requests for Admission, Set One are deemed admitted as to all three Plaintiffs.

The Court finds no substantial justification for Defendants’ failure to serve responses.  Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendant monetary sanctions against Valencia, Mata and Serrato as follows:

Valencia and Mata are each ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $1,012.50.

Serrano is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $490.

Plaintiff to give notice