Judge Richard Y. Lee, Case 30-2022-01277627 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2022-01277627, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff, Modernize Remodeling, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) has filed three discovery motions.

Form Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production, Set One

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant Luis Alfaro (“Defendant”) to serve full and complete, objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One within 10 days, and awarding monetary sanctions in the sum of $920 against Defendant.

Plaintiff also moves for an order compelling Defendant to serve full and complete, objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One, and awarding monetary sanctions in the sum of $828 against Defendant.

Plaintiff contends that it served Defendant with Form Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production, Set One, and that Defendant’s responses were due on December 2, 2022, but that prior to filing the present motions, no responses were received by Plaintiff and no request for an extension to respond was made by Defendant. Plaintiff also contends that monetary sanctions in the aforementioned amounts against Defendant are justified under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 and 2023.010(d) for Defendant’s misuse of the discovery process in failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery and that monetary sanctions are warranted and/or mandatory under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(b) and (c), and 2031.030(c) as Defendant has failed to provide verified responses to the discovery at issue and has not provided any excuse or justification for the failure to respond.

Defendant has not filed an opposition.

If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses, and for monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(b); 2031.300(b).) By operation of law, if a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories, all objections that could have been asserted are waived, including any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408; Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906.) Similarly, if a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for production, all objections are waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).)

The evidence submitted shows that on October 28, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with Form Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production, Set One, but that prior to filing the present motions, no responses were received by Plaintiff and no request for an extension to respond was made by Defendant. (Declaration of Yimeng Liu, ¶¶ 2-4, ROA 17, 21.)

As Defendant has failed to serve responses to the discovery at issue, all objections are waived. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(a); 2031.300(a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408; Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One. Defendant to provide verified responses, without objections, within 30 days of the notice of ruling.

As for monetary sanctions, “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 interrogatories [or a demand for inspection], 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) [interrogatories]; 2031.300(c) [inspection demands].) Additionally, the court may impose a monetary sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process, which includes the failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.030(a), 2023.010(d).)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel provides that Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is $230, and that for the motion concerning the Form Interrogatories, counsel expended 2.5 hours to prepare the motion and supporting papers, anticipates 1.0 hours to review any opposition and to prepare a reply, and anticipates 0.5 hours to appear at the hearing. (Declaration of Yimeng Liu, ¶ 5, ROA 17.) For the motion concerning the Requests for Production, Plaintiff’s counsel similarly provides that counsel expended 2.1 hours to prepare the motion and supporting papers, anticipates 1.0 hours to review any opposition and to prepare a reply, and anticipates 0.5 hours to appear at the hearing. (Declaration of Yimeng Liu, ¶ 5, ROA 21.) As these are simple, nearly duplicative motions to which no opposition has been filed, the Court GRANTS monetary sanctions for a reduced amount of $460 against Defendant, to be paid by Defendant within 30 days of the notice of ruling.

Requests for Admission, Set One

Plaintiff moves for an order deeming that the truth of any matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One be deemed admitted, and awarding monetary sanctions in the sum of $851 against Defendant.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 provides that if a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party waives any objection to the requests. The requesting party may also move for an order that the genuineness of documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a)-(b).) The court shall deem the matters admitted “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(c).)

Here, on October 28, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Admission, Set One, but prior to filing the present motion, no responses were received by Plaintiff and no request for an extension to respond was made by Defendant. (Declaration of Yimeng Liu, ¶¶ 2-4, ROA 25.)

As a result of Defendant’s failure to serve responses to the requests, Defendant has “waive[d] any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a).) Unless Defendant serves responses that are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220 prior to the hearing, Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted. (See Code Civ. Proc. §2033.280(c).) Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to deem the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted.

As for monetary sanctions, Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(c) provides, “[i]t 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 admission necessitated [the] motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)

Here, Defendant’s failure to serve timely responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, necessitated the filing of the instant motion. Plaintiff’s counsel requests $851 in monetary sanctions, and provides that counsel expended 2.2 hours to prepare the motion and supporting papers, anticipates 1.0 hours to review any opposition and to prepare a reply, and anticipates 0.5 hours to appear at the hearing. (Declaration of Yimeng Liu, ¶ 5, ROA 25.) The Court GRANTS reduced monetary sanctions in the amount of $230 against Defendant, to be paid by Defendant within 30 days of the notice of ruling.

Plaintiff to give notice.