Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted and Request for Sanctions filed by Defendant Moris Sakhai

TENTATIVE

Defendant Moris Sakhai’s motions to compel verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for production, and to have matters in requests for admissions deemed admitted are DENIED as moot. 

Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff David Amitai and attorney of record Moses O. Onyejekwe are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $560 jointly and severally, within 30 days of this order.

Legal Standard

Compel Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905–906.)

Deem RFAs Admitted 

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (b) 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…. The Court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect…. (c) 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.

Compel RPDs 

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded.  There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. 

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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), 2033.280(c).) 

Under CCP section 2023.030(a), “[t]he 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 any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) 

Discussion

On January 7, 2022, Defendant propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Production of Documents, Set One; and Request for Admissions, Set One on Plaintiff. (Avetisove Decl., ¶ 3; Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s deadline to respond was February 8, 2022. (Id., ¶ 4.) After granting Plaintiff an extension to respond, responses to the discovery were due on March 2, 2022, but Plaintiff did not provide the responses. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.)

In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel states that responses were provided and Defendant should have received these responses by October 6, 2022. (Onyejekwe Decl. ¶ 2.)

As such, as responses were provided, the motions are moot.

However, Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted as sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters admitted and there is no exception for substantial justification. But, the Court will reduce the amount requested due to the simplicity of the motion. Thus, the Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff David Amitai and attorney of record Moses O. Onyejekwe in the amount of $560 ($250 an hour for 2 hours, plus $60 in filing fees), jointly and severally, to be paid within 30 days of this order.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s motions to compel verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for production, and to have matters in requests for admissions deemed admitted are DENIED as moot. 

Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff David Amitai and attorney of record Moses O. Onyejekwe are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $560 jointly and severally, within 30 days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.