Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2021-01195817, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling
Motion No. 1:
Plaintiff’s (Roy N. Stone) Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production of Documents (Motion), filed on 3-8-23 under ROA No. 82, is DENIED as MOOT.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 states in part, “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: . . . [¶] (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.”
On 1-6-23, Plaintiff served Defendant (Carlos Guassac dba Long Lodge Tribal Enterprises) with “Request for Production of Documents, Set One.” (Thaler Decl., ¶ 3 and Exhibit 1.) Defendant did not provide responses to this discovery request. (Thaler Decl., ¶ 4.)
On 7-21-23 under ROA No. 100, Defendant filed Defendant’s Opposition to Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Opposition). The declaration in support of the Opposition states, “I did not see the Motions to Compel until March 12, 2023. I, immediately, wrote to Jesse Thaler, attorney for Plaintiff, and explained that I had not seen the discovery requests at issue. I apologized and informed Mr. Thaler that he would receive the discovery responses on or before March 17, 2023. Exhibit ‘A’ is a true and correct copy of this email . . . [¶] On March 17, 2023, I fully responded to the Production of Documents, Requests for Admissions, and Form Interrogatories. Attached and incorporated as Exhibit ‘B’ are true and correct copies of my responses.” (Guassac Decl., ¶¶ 3 and 5.)
Defendant’s evidence shows that Defendant inadvertently failed to provide timely responses. (Guassac Decl., ¶ 3.) After seeing this Motion, Defendant provided responses to the discovery at issue. (Guassac Decl., ¶ 5.) Since Defendant has provided responses to this discovery request, there is nothing for the court to compel.
Therefore, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s (Roy N. Stone) Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production of Documents, filed on 3-8-23 under ROA No. 82, as MOOT. The court does not impose a monetary sanction because the imposition of a monetary sanction is unjust under these circumstances. When Defendant learned of this Motion, Defendant promptly provided responses to the discovery at issue. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)
Court Clerk is to give notice.
Motion No. 2:
Plaintiff’s (Roy N. Stone) Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admissions, Set One (Motion), filed on 3-8-23 under ROA No. 81, is DENIED as MOOT.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 states, in part, “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: [¶] (a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). 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. [¶] (b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). . . .”
On 1-6-23, Plaintiff served Defendant (Carlos Guassac dba Long Lodge Tribal Enterprises) with “Request for Admissions, Set One.” (Thaler Decl., ¶ 3 and Exhibit 1.) Defendant did not provide responses to this discovery request. (Thaler Decl., ¶ 4.)
On 7-21-23 under ROA No. 102, Defendant filed Defendant’s Opposition to Motion to Deem Facts Admitted (Opposition). The declaration in support of the Opposition states, “I did not see the Motions to Compel until March 12, 2023. I, immediately, wrote to Jesse Thaler, attorney for Plaintiff, and explained that I had not seen the discovery requests at issue. I apologized and informed Mr. Thaler that he would receive the discovery responses on or before March 17, 2023. Exhibit ‘A’ is a true and correct copy of this email . . . [¶] On March 17, 2023, I fully responded to the Production of Documents, Requests for Admissions, and Form Interrogatories. Attached and incorporated as Exhibit ‘B’ are true and correct copies of my responses.” (Guassac Decl., ¶¶ 3 and 5.)
Defendant’s evidence shows that Defendant inadvertently failed to provide timely responses. (Guassac Decl., ¶ 3.) Thus, the court finds that Defendant’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of inadvertence under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (a)(2). After seeing this Motion, Defendant provided responses to the discovery at issue. (Guassac Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff has not filed a Reply. Thus, Plaintiff has not raised an issue regarding Defendant’s substantial compliance under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (a)(1). Since Defendant has provided responses to this discovery request, there is nothing for the court to compel.
Therefore, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s (Roy N. Stone) Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admissions, Set One, filed on 3-8-23 under ROA No. 81, as MOOT. Since a monetary sanction is mandatory under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c), the court imposes a monetary sanction in the amount of $460.00 against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff. (Thaler Decl., ¶ 6.)
Court Clerk is to give notice.