Motions to Compel Discovery (Judge Nancy Case Shaffer)


SCV-255780, Wade v. Huerls

The motions are granted as follows. ?The requests for admissions directed to Defendant Riley are deemed admitted. ??Further, Defendant Riley is ordered to provide responses to the written discovery propounded by Plaintiff Herbert Wade, to wit: (1) Special Interrogatories, Set One; (2) Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; and (3) Form Interrogatories, Set One. ?Further, the motion is granted as to the Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, as to Defendant Huerls. ?The motion to compel depositions of both Defendants is also granted. ??Despite the passage of time since this discovery was served and the continuance granted by the court, Defendants have failed to provide any evidence of Defendant Riley?s alleged lack of capacity.

The motion to compel responses to the interrogatories and deem admissions admitted, as to Defendant Huerls is moot (except as to sanctions) as she served legally sufficient responses prior to the hearing. ??Plaintiffs have the right to file a motion to compel further responses if Plaintiff believes that the late responses are deficient. ?(SeeSinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.)? However, the issue of sanctions is not mooted by service of responses after the motion is filed. ?(See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1030(a) [?The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though … the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed?].)

Additionally, the Court awards sanctions against Defendants Riley and Huerls, and their previous attorney, Thomas P. Kelly Jr., jointly and severally, in the amount of Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($2,760.00) to compensate Plaintiffs for ?the reasonable expenses? they have incurred as a result of Defendants? failure to timely respond to Plaintiffs? discovery.? ?(See, Code Civ. Proc. ?2023.030(a).)

Defendants shall submit an order consistent with this ruling.