Case Number: BC611608 Hearing Date: June 28, 2018 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motions to compel responses to Requests for Production and Special Interrogatories
Motion to compel responses to Requests for Production
Moving Party: Defendant Rod Clough, MAI
Resp. Party: None
The motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND:
Plaintiffs commenced this action on 02/25/16. They later filed a First Amended Complaint on 07/06/16 and a Second Amended Complaint on 11/18/16.
On 08/31/17, plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint against defendants for: (1) violation of professional standards; (2) fraud; (3) conspiracy to commit fraud; (4) securities fraud pursuant to California Corporations Code section 25401; (5) negligence; and (6) securities fraud pursuant to California Corporations Code section 25401.
On 08/14/17 defendants Moody National Lyndhurst, S, LLC and Moody National CY Lyndhurst MT, LLC filed a Cross-Complaint against plaintiffs for: (1) breach of contract.
ANALYSIS:
Defendant moves the Court for an order compelling responses to Requests for Production, Set 1, Nos. 1-49 from each of the following plaintiffs: Courtney Sherman; Stephen Webber; Peter Webber; Passive Investments, LLC; David Rosenfield as owner of Tic Cy Lynhurst 19, LLC; Ensign Apartments, LC; Jean Dethiersant; Jerome Cowan, as Trustee of the Jerome Cowan Revocable Trust; Edward Griffith, as Trustee of the Edward W. and Carol H. Griffith Family Trust; Jeanette Solie, as Trustee of the Kenneth E. Solie Revocable Trust; Norris Whitmore, Donna Tong; Cecil Watts, as Trustee of the 2003, Cecil E. Watts and Marjorie E. Watts Revocable Trust; and Rosemarie Parr. (See Notice of Motion, p. 2:1-12.)
Relevant Law
California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom requests for production are propounded within 30 days after service of the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260(a).) If a party fails to serve timely responses, “the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).) By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).)
For a motion to compel, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 906.) Indeed, “[o]nce [a party] ‘fail[ed] to serve a timely response,’ the trial court had authority to grant [opposing party’s] motion to compel responses.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Counseling, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)
Discussion
Defendant declares that each plaintiff was individually served with Requests for Production, Set One on 01/18/18. (Sandler Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) The Court notes that defendant has submitted proofs of service indicating that each of the plaintiffs named in this motion was served on 01/18/18. (See Ibid.) After defendant granted several extensions, plaintiffs’ responses were due on or before 04/29/18. (See Id. at ¶¶ 4-14.) Plaintiffs did not produce any responses and, on 04/30/18, plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that he would return defense counsel’s call but did not ask for any further extension. (Id. at ¶ 15.) As of 06/01/18, plaintiffs had not yet served any responses. (Id. at ¶ 16.)
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
Motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories
Moving Party: Defendant TS Worldwide, L.L.C. d/b/a/ HVS Consulting & Valuation
Resp. Party: None
The motion is GRANTED.
ANALYSIS:
Defendant moves the Court for an order compelling responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1-57 from each of the following plaintiffs: Courtney Sherman; Stephen Webber; Peter Webber; Passive Investments, LLC; David Rosenfield as owner of Tic Cy Lynhurst 19, LLC; Ensign Apartments, LC; Jean Dethiersant; Jerome Cowan, as Trustee of the Jerome Cowan Revocable Trust; Edward Griffith, as Trustee of the Edward W. and Carol H. Griffith Family Trust; Jeanette Solie, as Trustee of the Kenneth E. Solie Revocable Trust; Norris Whitmore, Donna Tong; Cecil Watts, as Trustee of the 2003, Cecil E. Watts and Marjorie E. Watts Revocable Trust; and Rosemarie Parr. (See Notice of Motion, p. 2:1-10.) Defendant does not seek sanctions in connection with this motion.
Relevant Law
California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom interrogatories are propounded within 30 days after service of the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260(a).) If a party fails to serve timely responses, “the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(b).) By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)
For a motion to compel, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 906.) Indeed, “[o]nce [a party] ‘fail[ed] to serve a timely response,’ the trial court had authority to grant [opposing party’s] motion to compel responses.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Counseling, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)
Discussion
Defendant declares that each plaintiff was individually served with Special Interrogatories, Set One on 01/18/18. (Sandler Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) The Court notes that defendant has submitted proofs of service indicating that each of the plaintiffs named in this motion was served on 01/18/18. (See Ibid.) After defendant granted several extensions, plaintiffs’ responses were due on or before 04/29/18. (See Id. at ¶¶ 4-14.) Plaintiffs did not produce any responses and, on 04/30/18, plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that he would return defense counsel’s call but did not ask for any further extension. (Id. at ¶ 15.) As of 06/01/18, plaintiffs had not yet served any responses. (Id. at ¶ 16.)
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.