VERONICA FLORES ET AL VS GLOBE UNION INDUSTRIAL CORP ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC663442    Hearing Date: January 28, 2020    Dept: SEC

FLORES v. GLOBE UNION INDUSTRIAL CORP., et al.

CASE NO.: BC663442

HEARING: 1/28/20

JUDGE: MARGARET M. BERNAL

#5

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.’s motion to compel responses and verification to form interrogatories (set one) is MOOT.

II. Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.’s motion to compel responses and verification to special interrogatories (set one) is MOOT.

III. Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.’s motion to compel responses and verification to requests for production of documents (set one) is MOOT.

IV. Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.’s motion to compel responses and verification to request for admissions is MOOT.

Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiffs Veronica Flores, Sergio Flores, and Ramon Sanchez, jointly and severally, in the sum of $2,467.50, payable within 30 days.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. moves for verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, document demands, and request for admissions per CCP 2030.290, 2031.300, and 2033.280.

CCP 2030.290(b) and 2031.300(b) allow the propounding party to file a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and document demands if a response has not been received. If responses are untimely, responding party waives objections. (CCP 2030.290(a) and 2031.300(a).) CCP 2033.280(b) and (c) allow the propounding party to file a motion requesting that the truth of any matters specified in the request for admissions be deemed admitted unless the party to whom the requests have been directed has served before the hearing a proposed response that is in substantial compliance.

Prior to the hearing on these motions, Plaintiffs have served verified responses. Therefore, the motions are MOOT.

Sanctions: CCP 2023.010(d), 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) authorize the court to impose sanctions for failure to respond to discovery without substantial justification. CCP 2033.280 makes the imposition of sanctions mandatory if a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admission. “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”  (CRC 3.1348(a); .”  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409.)

Here, sanctions are appropriate because Plaintiffs failed to serve timely responses to discovery, and imposition of sanctions is mandatory because Plaintiffs failed to timely respond to request for admissions. The court finds Defendant’s total request of $2,467.50 is reasonable under the circumstances. Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiffs Veronica Flores, Sergio Flores, and Ramon Sanchez, jointly and severally, in the sum of $2,467.50, payable within 30 days.