MCT GROUP v WALSH

MCT GROUP v WALSH

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Now before the Court is a motion to compel responses to discovery brought MCT Group (“Plaintiff”) against David C. Walsh (“Defendant.”) Defendant has not filed an opposition. On March 26, 2026, Plaintiff served Defendant with Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”) and Request for Admissions (“RFA”) (collectively “Discovery”) (Declaration of Aimee R. Morris (“Morris Decl.”) ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Defendant never responded nor communicated with Plaintiffs’ counsel about the Discovery. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 5.)

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.300, if a party to whom requests for production of documents fails to serve a timely response then: (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). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240 and 2031.280. (2) The party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.280, if a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

(a) The 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 under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:

1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.

2) The party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

Further, the Court shall deem the facts admitted as truth, unless it finds that the party to whom the RFAs were directed, “has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)

A party moving to compel initial responses under these sections are not required to meet and confer. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Plaintiffs served Defendant with the Discovery on March 26, 2026. Defendant has not responded to the RFAs and has not filed an opposition.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to the RPDs. Defendant is to provide code-compliant responses, without objections, within fourteen (14) days of this order. The Court also GRANTS the motion to deem the facts as admitted as truth.

Plaintiff also seeks sanctions in the amount of $960.00. The Court must impose sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 for the failure to respond to RPDs and to meet and confer in good faith (Code Civ. Proc. §2023.050. (a)(1) and (3).) Accordingly, Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,000.00 within fourteen (14) days of this order.

The clerk shall provide notice of this ruling to the parties forthwith. Plaintiff to submit a formal Order complying with Rule 3.1312 in conformity with this Ruling.