ALLEN VS. SHRANER, ET AL.

CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0206889 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Compel Response to Discovery: Defendants Michael J. Schraner and Janet Schraner seek an order deeming the truth of the matters specified in Defendants’ Requests for Admission, Set One to be admitted by Plaintiff Michael D. Allen, compelling verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and monetary sanctions. Despite being properly noticed, Plaintiff did not oppose the motion.

When a party fails to respond to Requests for Admission, the requesting party may move for an order deeming the genuineness of documents and the truth of matters specified in the requests admitted. CCP § 2033.280(b). A party has thirty days after service to respond to Form Interrogatories. CCP § 2030.260(a). Not providing a timely response to propounded discovery results in a waiver of objections. CCP § 2030.290(a). Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses when no responses have been 1

provided does not require the propounding party to demonstrate good cause or that it satisfied a meet-and-confer requirement. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390. Despite not being required to do so, Defendants’ counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff attempting to meet and confer on June 26, 2026.

Defendants have provided evidence that Plaintiff was served by mail on May 20, 2026 with Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set Two and Requests for Admission, Set One. It is now more than thirty days since Plaintiff was served and Plaintiff has not responded to the propounded discovery. The Court finds that there is good cause justifying the discovery sought by Defendants. The Court notes that Form Interrogatories, Set Two only included Item 17.1, which seeks information about each Request for Admission. Deeming the Requests for Admission admitted renders a response to 17.1 moot.

Sanctions. CCP § 2030.290(c) only provides for sanctions when an unsuccessful opposition is made, however, the Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery even when no opposition was filed. CRC 3.1348. Monetary sanctions are mandatory when a party fails to timely respond to Requests for Admission. CCP § 2033.280(c). Defendant seeks $1,710 in monetary sanctions which is comprised of a $60 motion fee, four hours of attorney time for the motion, and 1.5 hours of attorney time for Plaintiff failing to attend the Mandatory Settlement Conference on June 8, 2026.

There is no legal basis for the Court to award the 1.5 hours requested for the Mandatory Settlement Conference. The Court will award four hours for the discovery motion and $60 for the motion fee. Counsel requests the rate of $300 per hour which the Court finds to be reasonable. Monetary sanctions are awarded to Defendants in the amount of $1,260.

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted as true each of the items contained in Defendants’ Request for Admissions, Set One. Because the Requests for Admission have been deemed admitted, there is no need for a response to Form Interrogatories, Set Two. Monetary sanctions are awarded to Defendants in the amount of $1,260. Plaintiff provided a proposed Order, however, the proposed Order does not contain the text of the Requests for Admission being deemed admitted. Defendant shall provide a proposed Order that includes the text of Requests for Admission, Set One.

BAMFORD, ET AL. VS. BURNEY WATER DISTRICT