1167 MISSION STREET, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED VS. IMAGE INTERIORS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Friday, August 1, 2025, Line 3 [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling]. PLAINTIFF 1167 MISSION STREET, LLC's Motion To Compel Answers To Interrogatories And Requests For Production Of Documents To Compel Production Of Documents For Order Establishing Admissions And For Sanctions.

Plaintiff 1167 Mission Street LLC's motion for discovery sanctions is granted. Plaintiff initially moved to compel defendant Image Interiors LLC to respond to its form interrogatories and requests for production of documents, for a deemed-admitted order as to its request for admissions, and for sanctions. Defendant failed to timely respond to this discovery and has thereby waived objections. (CCP 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a).)

Defendant did not timely oppose the motion. Plaintiff's reply brief discloses that no opposition was filed but Defendant recently served responses. Plaintiff asks for sanctions and asks to reserve its ability to seek further relief if the just-filed responses are inadequate. After Plaintiff filed its reply brief, Defendant filed a counsel declaration asking the court not to impose sanctions because of the difficulties of responses and production, and because Defendant believed Plaintiff would take the motion off calendar if it provided responses.

The court grants sanctions. The relevant statutes (CCP 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c)) provide that the court shall impose monetary sanctions against a party who opposes a motion to compel "unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." Sanctions are appropriate on a discovery motion where the objecting party does not act with substantial justification in its discovery compliance, even where the party does not oppose the motion. (See Rule of Court 3.1348(a).) Sanctions are mandatory for a failure to respond to a request for admissions. (CCP 2033.280(c).)

Moreover, the court concludes that sanctions are appropriate here notwithstanding Defendant's delayed response. First, they are simply mandatory under 2033.280(c). Second, the court concludes they are appropriate. Discovery is intended to be self-executing. Parties may seek extensions or protective orders if the Code-prescribed dates are unworkable. When a party has to file a motion in order to obtain discovery responses, its opponent has engaged in a misuse of the discovery process by requiring the invocation of finite judicial resources.

The court does not lose jurisdiction to impose sanctions when a party serves responses after a discovery motion is filed. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409