Case Number: 24SMCV04308 Hearing Date: October 6, 2025 Dept: 207
TENTATIVE RULING
| DEPARTMENT | 207 |
| HEARING DATE | October 6, 2025 |
| CASE NUMBER | 24SMCV04308 |
| MOTIONS | Motions to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Special Interrogatories, and Form Interrogatories and to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission. |
| MOVING PARTIES | Defendants FCI Lender Services, Inc. and Coastal Capital Group, LLC |
| OPPOSING PARTY | none |
MOTIONS
This case arises over a dispute concerning the foreclosure of Plaintiff Maya Grushansky’s (“Plaintiff”) real property.
On September 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants FCI Lender Services, Inc. (“FCI”) and Coastal Capital Group, LLC (“Coastal”) (together, “Defendants”) alleging five causes of action for (1) Violation of Civil Code section 2923.5; (2) Violation of Civil Code section 2924.9; (3) Wrongful Foreclosure: (4) Unfair Business Practices; and (5) Cancellation of Written Instruments.
Defendants now move to compel responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”); and Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”) and to deem admitted the matters in Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFA”). The motions are unopposed.
LEGAL STANDARDS
- Interrogatories
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010. . . . [and] The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (a)-(b).)
- Requests for Production
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.300, subd. (a), “[i]f 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: (a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Where a party fails to respond to demands for production, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) “Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original response to it on the party making the demand . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).)
- Requests for Admission
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom requests or admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he 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[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) Where a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, the propounding 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, as well as for a monetary sanction.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)
ANALYSIS
- Discovery Requests
Defendants electronically served Plaintiff’s counsel the RPD, FROG, SROG, and RFA on April 14, 2025, making the responses due May 16, 2025. (Hubbard Decl. ¶¶ 3-4 and Ex. 1.) On April 29, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel requested a two-week extension, to which Defendants’ counsel responded with a question. (Hubbard Decl. ¶ 5 and Ex. 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond to Defendants’ counsel’s question or otherwise secure an extension in writing. (Ibid.)
Plaintiff failed to serve any responses or objections to the discovery requests by the May 16, 2025 deadline. (Hubbard Decl. ¶ 6.)
On May 20, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel advised that if responses were not received by May 23, 2025, Defendants would file motions to compel/deem admitted. (Hubbard Decl. ¶ 7 and Ex. 3.)
On June 5, 2025, counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants agreed to attend an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) on September 2, 2025. (Hubbard Decl. ¶ 8.) On June 6, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel moved to be relieved as counsel, which was granted, and Plaintiff now represents herself in pro per. (Ibid.)
Although Plaintiff’s phone number of record appears to have been changed or disconnected, Defense counsel was able to reach Plaintiff via email on August 26, 2025. (Hubbard Decl. ¶¶ 9-10.) Plaintiff responded that she was in search of a replacement attorney. Plaintiff further indicated she provided her prior counsel with discovery responses and was unsure why they were not forwarded to Defense counsel. (Hubbard Decl. ¶ 10 and Ex. 4.) Thereafter, Defense counsel sent Plaintiff courtesy copies of all four outstanding discovery requests and requested code-compliant, verified responses without objections by August 29, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. (Hubbard Decl. ¶ 11.)
On September 2, 2025, Plaintiff failed to appear at the IDC. (Hubbard Decl. ¶ 12.) To date, Defendants have not received any responses, verifications, or objections from Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s prior counsel. (Hubbard Decl. ¶¶ 10, 13.)
Therefore, Defendants have demonstrated that Plaintiff failed to respond to the RPD, SROG, FROG, and RFA. As such, the Court grants Defendants’ motions to compel responses to the RPD, SROG, FROG, and deems admitted the matters specified in the RFA.
- Monetary Sanctions
Defendants also seek monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,610 for each motion, representing 4 hours of attorney time to prepare the instant motion, plus an anticipated 2 hours to review the opposition, prepare a reply, and attend the hearing, at an hourly rate of $435.
The Court grants in part Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions in the total amount of $2,175, representing 1 hour to prepare each motion and 1 hour to appear for and attend the hearing on the motions, for a total of 5 hours at the requested rate of $435.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Therefore, finding Plaintiff failed to provide timely responses to the FROG, SROG, RPD, and RFA, the Court grants Defendants’ unopposed motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the FROG, SROG, and RPD and deems admitted the matters specified in the RFA.
As such, the Court orders Plaintiff to serve verified code-compliant responses to the FROG, SROG, and RPD, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.
The Court further orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,175, to Defendants, by and through Defendant’s counsel, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.
Defendants are ordered to provide notice of the Court’s order and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.
DATED: October 6, 2025 _______/s/____________________
Michael E. Whitaker
Judge of the Superior Court