Preview
Richard Abel
707 Hahman Drive, No. 9301
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Telephone: (707) 340-3894
Plaintiff, In pro per
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
RICHARD ABEL, an individual; Case Number: SCV-263456
Plaintiff. PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT
> LENORA VERNE FUNG'S OPPOSITION
v. TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DEEM
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN JR. an ADMITTED, TO COMPEL RESPONSES,
individual; SUNDERLAND/McCUTCHAN, | “ND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive; Date: December 5, 2022
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Defendants. Dept: 10 - Hon. Christopher Honigsberg|
Trial Date: March 10, 2023
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Plaintiff Richard Abel ("Plaintiff") hereby submits this reply to the opposition by
defendant Lenora Verne Fung ("Fung" or "Responding Party" herein) to Plaintiff's Motion to
Deem the Requests for Admissions Admitted, to Compel Responses, and for monetary sanctions,
against defendant Fung, for her failure to respond to discovery in good faith and in full
compliance with the Discovery Act.
As of June 9, 2022 when this instant motion was filed, Plaintiff had not received any
responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission ("RFA"), or Form Interrogatories ("FI") from
Fung. (See, Abel Decl. §6.) Fung did not respond to this discovery until June 27, 2022.
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT LENORA VERNE FUNG'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
1IL.
SUMMARY OF THE DISPUTE
A. The Date of Service is Disputed
Plaintiff received Fung's responses in a box post-marked June 27, 2022. The box was sent
by "USPS Retail Ground." (See, Abel Supplemental ("Supp") Decl. {13.) Plaintiff received
Fung's box on or about July 1, 2022. (See, Abel Supp. Decl. 414.)
Fung's lawyer claims that he served Fung's responses to Plaintiff on June 6, 2022. (See,
McCutchan Decl. 10.) That is false. If Fung's responses had been mailed by regular first class
mail on June 6, Plaintiff would have received them by June 9. Edward McCutchan falsely
represented in his proof of service that he mailed Fung's documents by "USPS FIRST CLASS
MAIL." (See, the proofs of service in McCutchan Decl. Ex. 5, at p. 23; Ex. 6 at p. 70.)
It is false because, Fung's responses came in a box marked "USPS Retail Ground."
McCutchan did not send Fung's responses by First Class Mail on June 6 as stated in the proof of
service he signed. He sent them by USPS Retail Ground on June 27. (Abel Supp. Decl 13.)
Edward McCutchan admitted that he failed to timely serve responses to Plaintiff's first set!
of discovery to Fung's co-defendant Jacinda Duval. (See, McCutchan Decl. in support of
Opposition to motion to compel against Jacinda Duval, {{10.) The same thing happened here,
where McCutchan neglected to timely answer Plaintiff's discovery to Fung. McCutchan is now
attempting to cover up his mistake.
B. The Maximum Weight for First Class Mail is 13 Ounces
The maximum weight allowed by the Post Office for an envelope sent by First Class Mail
is 13 ounces. (See, Abel Supp. Decl. 15.) McCutchan claims that he sent Fung's and Hing's
responses together on the same day by First Class Mail. (See, McCutchan Decl. 46, 48) Fung's
responses contain a total of 93 pages. (See, McCutchan Decl. Ex. 5 at p. 23; Ex. 6 at p. 70.)
Hing's responses contain a total of 97 pages. (See, McCutchan Decl. Ex. 9 at p. 31; Ex. 10 at p.
66.) That amount of paper weighs two (2) pounds, and three (3) ounces. (See, Abel Supp. Decl.
4[16.) The Post Office would not have allowed that weight to go First Class. The statement
made by McCutchan on his proof of service that he sent the items by First Class Mail is false.
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT LENORA VERNE FUNG'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
2C. The Proof of Service Signed By McCutchan is Invalid
Code of Civ. Proc. § 1013a provides that the affidavit on the proof of service must be
signed by a person "over the age of 18 years and not a party to the cause." (See, CCP §1013a(1)
(2) and (3)). McCutchan is a party to this action. McCutchan is the person who signed the proof,
of service. McCutchan is not eligible to sign the proof of service per CCP §1013a.
Nor was any receipt for the postage paid for the "regular first class mail" provided by
McCutchan in his declaration. McCutchan would have had to buy and affix the postage, before
he allegedly "placed it in a United States Post Office box by himself." There is no declaration
from Ms. Fung. There is no evidence here that Fung's box was actually mailed on June 6.
The proof of service signed by McCutchan is invalid because he is a party in this action,
and is not admissible evidence. McCutchan also stated in the proofs of service attached to
Fung's opposition and to his declaration in support of Fung's opposition under penalty of perjury
that he is "over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action." But he is.
IL.
LE
A. Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted
Failure to timely respond to Requests for Admission results in a waiver of all objections
to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc. §2033.280, subd. (a).) The statutory language leaves no room
for discretion. (Tobin v. Oris (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 814, 828.) “The law governing the
consequences for failing to respond to requests for admission may be the most unforgiving in
civil procedure. There is no relief under section 473. The defaulting party is limited to the
remedies available in [Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.280]....” (Demyer v. Costa Mesa
Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 394-395, disapproved on other grounds in
Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983, fn. 12.)
The court may relieve the party who fails to file a timely response if, before entry of the
order deeming the requested matters admitted, the party in default: 1) moves for relief from
waiver and shows that the failure to serve a timely response was due to “mistake, inadvertence or
excusable neglect;” and 2) serves a response in “substantial compliance” with Code of Civil
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT LENORA VERNE FUNG'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
3Procedure Section 2033.220 (See Code Civ. Proc. §2033.280, subds. (a)-(c); See Brigante v.
Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1584, disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox y. Birtwhistle
(1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983, fn. 12.) “If the party manages to serve its responses before the
hearing, the court has no discretion but to deny the motion . . . Everything, in short, depends on
submitting responses prior to the hearing.” (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes Estates (1995)
36 Cal. App. 4th 393, 395-396.)
CCP §2033.280 does not contain a requirement that the moving party meet and confer
with the party who failed to timely respond to requests for admission. In addition, no separate
statement is required where there has been no response.
(1) Analysis
On May 3, 2022, Plaintiff served by mail the first set of RFA's on Fung. (See, Abel Decl.
4{5.) At the time when Plaintiff filed the instant motion on June 9, 2022, Plaintiff had not yet
received any responses from Fung. (See, Abel Decl. §6.)
Plaintiff had grounds for this motion to deem the matters admitted on June 9, 2022 since
Plaintiff had not received any kind of response from Fung as of that date.
A pending demurrer or motion to dismiss is not grounds for objection. California law
permits discovery to proceed while the pleadings develop. CCP §2031.020(b); Budget Finance
Plan v. Superior Court (1973) 34 Cal.App. 3d 794, 797-798. The case needs to move forward,
and Plaintiff has been prejudiced by Fung's failure to respond.
(2) Substantial Compliance is Required
Since Fung served her late responses on June 27, 2022, the Court needs to determine if
Fung's responses are in "substantial compliance." Fung's lawyer McCutchan cut and pasted in
the same boilerplate objections to each and every one of the RFA's. (See, McCutchan Decl. Ex.
5.) The Court can see that Fung's tardy responses are not in substantial compliance. A late
response waives all objections. (See, CCP § 2033.280(a); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes
Estates, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at 394.) Fung waived all objections.
Since there was no substantial compliance, the Court should grant this motion, and order
that all of the requests for admission to Fung be deemed admitted.
a
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT LENORA VERNE FUNG'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
4(3) Sanctions Are Mandatory
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c), provides that “[i]t is
mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section]
2023.010) upon the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to
requests for admission necessitated this motion.”
Plaintiff incurred time and costs to obtain these responses from Fung. Although Plaintiff
is not an attorney and cannot request any attorneys fees, Plaintiff may request his reasonable
costs in a discovery motion as a monetary sanction. Plaintiff requested sanctions in the amount
of $130.04 to reimburse Plaintiff for his costs to bring this motion. (See, Abel Decl. 48.)
B. Moti A nse to the Form Interrogatories:
Fung did not serve her responses to the Form Interrogatories until June 27, 2022. (See,
Abel Supp. Decl. { 13). Failure to respond to interrogatories within the 30-day time limit waives
objections to the discovery, including claims of privilege and “work product” protection. (Code
Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a); see Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111
Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)
(1) Analysis
On May 3, 2022, Plaintiff served by mail the first set of FI's on defendant Fung. (See,
Abel Decl. 95.) At the time Plaintiff filed this instant motion on June 9, 2022, Plaintiff had not
received any responses to the FI's from Fung. (See, Abel Decl. §6.) Fung's lawyer McCutchan
sent Fung's responses for the FI's to Plaintiff in a box post-marked June 27, 2022. (See, Abel
Supp. Decl. 413.) Plaintiff received the responses on or about July 1, 2022. Ud. 414.)
(2) Substantial Compliance is Required
Since Fung served her FI responses late on June 27, 2022, the issue remains whether
Fung's responses to the FI's are in "substantial compliance."
Just like Fung's responses to the RFA's supra, Fung's lawyer McCutchan cut and pasted
in the same boilerplate objections to each and every one of the FI's. (See, McCutchan Decl. Ex.
6.) The Court can see that Fung's tardy responses to the FI's are not in substantial compliance.
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT LENORA VERNE FUNG'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
5Fung's objections were waived. (See, CCP § 2030.290(a); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes
Estates, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at 394.)
(3) Sanctions
Plaintiff was not required to give Fung additional time to respond, and Fung has not
served responses in "substantial compliance" before the hearing. Therefore the Court should
grant Plaintiff's motion for a response to the FI's, and order defendant Fung to provide full and
complete code-compliant responses to the FI's without objections.
Sanctions are mandatory against the party who loses the motion to compel responses to
discovery unless the court finds that the party acted “with substantial justification” or other
circumstances that would render sanctions “unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c)
[Interrogatories].)
Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $130.04 to reimburse Plaintiff for his
reasonable costs to bring this motion to obtain code-compliant responses from Fung. (See, Abel
Decl. 48).
TIL.
CONCLUSION
Fung is a party to this action, and has a duty to participate in discovery. Fung failed to
provide her responses in a timely manner, and did not respond until June 27, 2022. Plaintiff had
grounds for filing this instant motion on June 9 to obtain these responses from Fung.
Fung's responses to this discovery are clearly not in substantial compliance with the
discovery code. Only copied and pasted boilerplate objections were served.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court must GRANT this motion.
November 20, 2022
(hod Ups
Richard Abel, Plaintiff
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT LENORA VERNE FUNG'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
6POS-030
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
Richard Abel
707 Hahman Drive, No. 9301
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
TELEPHONE NO.:(707) 340-3894 FAX NO. (Optional)
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional):
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff pro per
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA
street appress:600 Administration Drive, Room 107-J
mauine aopress:600 Administration Drive, Room 107-J
city ano zip cove:Santa Rosa, CA 95404
srancu Name:Civil Division - Dept. 10
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: A bel
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:McCutchan, Jr. et.al.
CASE NUMBER:
PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL—CIVIL SCV-263456
(Do not use this Proof of Service to show service of a Summons and Complaint.)
1. lam over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. | am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing
took place.
2. My residence or business address is:
007-B West College Avenue, PMB 532, Santa Rosa, CA 95404
3. On (date):November 22, 2022 | mailed from (city and state): Santa Rosa, California
the following documents (specify):
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT LENORA VERNE FUNG'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED, TO COMPEL RESPONSES, AND
FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Service by First-Class Mail—Civil (Documents Served)
(form POS-030(D)).
4. | served the documents by enclosing them in an envelope and (check one):
a. [YZ] depositing the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service with the postage fully prepaid.
b. placing the envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar with this
business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is
placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in
a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid
5. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:
a. Name of person served: see below
b. Address of person served:
B.Edward McCutchan, Jr. Joseph Picchi
Sunderland/ McCutchan, Inc. only by email: jpicchi@glattys.com
083 Vine Street, PMB 907 Nansi Ida Weil
Healdsburg, CA 95448 only by email: nansiweil@comcast.net
The name and address of each person to whom | mailed the documents is listed in the Attachment to Proof of Service
by First-Class Mail—Civil (Persons Served) (POS-030(P)).
| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: November 22, 2022 é :
Henry Crigler »
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON COMPLETING THIS FORM) —- PERSON,
Ton approveg fer Optona Use PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL
Judicial Council of California
POS-030 [New January 1, 2005] (Proof of Service)
MPLETING THIS FORM)
Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 1013, 10134
www courtinfo.ca.gov
Preview
Richard Abel 707 Hahman Drive, No. 9301 Santa Rosa, CA 95405 Telephone: (707) 340-3894 Plaintiff, In pro per SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA RICHARD ABEL, an individual; Case Number: SCV-263456 Plaintiff. PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT > LENORA VERNE FUNG'S OPPOSITION v. TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN JR. an ADMITTED, TO COMPEL RESPONSES, individual; SUNDERLAND/McCUTCHAN, | “ND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Date: December 5, 2022 Time: 1:30 p.m. Defendants. Dept: 10 - Hon. Christopher Honigsberg| Trial Date: March 10, 2023 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Plaintiff Richard Abel ("Plaintiff") hereby submits this reply to the opposition by defendant Lenora Verne Fung ("Fung" or "Responding Party" herein) to Plaintiff's Motion to Deem the Requests for Admissions Admitted, to Compel Responses, and for monetary sanctions, against defendant Fung, for her failure to respond to discovery in good faith and in full compliance with the Discovery Act. As of June 9, 2022 when this instant motion was filed, Plaintiff had not received any responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission ("RFA"), or Form Interrogatories ("FI") from Fung. (See, Abel Decl. §6.) Fung did not respond to this discovery until June 27, 2022. PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT LENORA VERNE FUNG'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL 1IL. SUMMARY OF THE DISPUTE A. The Date of Service is Disputed Plaintiff received Fung's responses in a box post-marked June 27, 2022. The box was sent by "USPS Retail Ground." (See, Abel Supplemental ("Supp") Decl. {13.) Plaintiff received Fung's box on or about July 1, 2022. (See, Abel Supp. Decl. 414.) Fung's lawyer claims that he served Fung's responses to Plaintiff on June 6, 2022. (See, McCutchan Decl. 10.) That is false. If Fung's responses had been mailed by regular first class mail on June 6, Plaintiff would have received them by June 9. Edward McCutchan falsely represented in his proof of service that he mailed Fung's documents by "USPS FIRST CLASS MAIL." (See, the proofs of service in McCutchan Decl. Ex. 5, at p. 23; Ex. 6 at p. 70.) It is false because, Fung's responses came in a box marked "USPS Retail Ground." McCutchan did not send Fung's responses by First Class Mail on June 6 as stated in the proof of service he signed. He sent them by USPS Retail Ground on June 27. (Abel Supp. Decl 13.) Edward McCutchan admitted that he failed to timely serve responses to Plaintiff's first set! of discovery to Fung's co-defendant Jacinda Duval. (See, McCutchan Decl. in support of Opposition to motion to compel against Jacinda Duval, {{10.) The same thing happened here, where McCutchan neglected to timely answer Plaintiff's discovery to Fung. McCutchan is now attempting to cover up his mistake. B. The Maximum Weight for First Class Mail is 13 Ounces The maximum weight allowed by the Post Office for an envelope sent by First Class Mail is 13 ounces. (See, Abel Supp. Decl. 15.) McCutchan claims that he sent Fung's and Hing's responses together on the same day by First Class Mail. (See, McCutchan Decl. 46, 48) Fung's responses contain a total of 93 pages. (See, McCutchan Decl. Ex. 5 at p. 23; Ex. 6 at p. 70.) Hing's responses contain a total of 97 pages. (See, McCutchan Decl. Ex. 9 at p. 31; Ex. 10 at p. 66.) That amount of paper weighs two (2) pounds, and three (3) ounces. (See, Abel Supp. Decl. 4[16.) The Post Office would not have allowed that weight to go First Class. The statement made by McCutchan on his proof of service that he sent the items by First Class Mail is false. PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT LENORA VERNE FUNG'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL 2C. The Proof of Service Signed By McCutchan is Invalid Code of Civ. Proc. § 1013a provides that the affidavit on the proof of service must be signed by a person "over the age of 18 years and not a party to the cause." (See, CCP §1013a(1) (2) and (3)). McCutchan is a party to this action. McCutchan is the person who signed the proof, of service. McCutchan is not eligible to sign the proof of service per CCP §1013a. Nor was any receipt for the postage paid for the "regular first class mail" provided by McCutchan in his declaration. McCutchan would have had to buy and affix the postage, before he allegedly "placed it in a United States Post Office box by himself." There is no declaration from Ms. Fung. There is no evidence here that Fung's box was actually mailed on June 6. The proof of service signed by McCutchan is invalid because he is a party in this action, and is not admissible evidence. McCutchan also stated in the proofs of service attached to Fung's opposition and to his declaration in support of Fung's opposition under penalty of perjury that he is "over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action." But he is. IL. LE A. Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted Failure to timely respond to Requests for Admission results in a waiver of all objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc. §2033.280, subd. (a).) The statutory language leaves no room for discretion. (Tobin v. Oris (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 814, 828.) “The law governing the consequences for failing to respond to requests for admission may be the most unforgiving in civil procedure. There is no relief under section 473. The defaulting party is limited to the remedies available in [Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.280]....” (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 394-395, disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983, fn. 12.) The court may relieve the party who fails to file a timely response if, before entry of the order deeming the requested matters admitted, the party in default: 1) moves for relief from waiver and shows that the failure to serve a timely response was due to “mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect;” and 2) serves a response in “substantial compliance” with Code of Civil PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT LENORA VERNE FUNG'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL 3Procedure Section 2033.220 (See Code Civ. Proc. §2033.280, subds. (a)-(c); See Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1584, disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox y. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983, fn. 12.) “If the party manages to serve its responses before the hearing, the court has no discretion but to deny the motion . . . Everything, in short, depends on submitting responses prior to the hearing.” (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes Estates (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 393, 395-396.) CCP §2033.280 does not contain a requirement that the moving party meet and confer with the party who failed to timely respond to requests for admission. In addition, no separate statement is required where there has been no response. (1) Analysis On May 3, 2022, Plaintiff served by mail the first set of RFA's on Fung. (See, Abel Decl. 4{5.) At the time when Plaintiff filed the instant motion on June 9, 2022, Plaintiff had not yet received any responses from Fung. (See, Abel Decl. §6.) Plaintiff had grounds for this motion to deem the matters admitted on June 9, 2022 since Plaintiff had not received any kind of response from Fung as of that date. A pending demurrer or motion to dismiss is not grounds for objection. California law permits discovery to proceed while the pleadings develop. CCP §2031.020(b); Budget Finance Plan v. Superior Court (1973) 34 Cal.App. 3d 794, 797-798. The case needs to move forward, and Plaintiff has been prejudiced by Fung's failure to respond. (2) Substantial Compliance is Required Since Fung served her late responses on June 27, 2022, the Court needs to determine if Fung's responses are in "substantial compliance." Fung's lawyer McCutchan cut and pasted in the same boilerplate objections to each and every one of the RFA's. (See, McCutchan Decl. Ex. 5.) The Court can see that Fung's tardy responses are not in substantial compliance. A late response waives all objections. (See, CCP § 2033.280(a); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes Estates, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at 394.) Fung waived all objections. Since there was no substantial compliance, the Court should grant this motion, and order that all of the requests for admission to Fung be deemed admitted. a PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT LENORA VERNE FUNG'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL 4(3) Sanctions Are Mandatory Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c), provides that “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section] 2023.010) upon the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” Plaintiff incurred time and costs to obtain these responses from Fung. Although Plaintiff is not an attorney and cannot request any attorneys fees, Plaintiff may request his reasonable costs in a discovery motion as a monetary sanction. Plaintiff requested sanctions in the amount of $130.04 to reimburse Plaintiff for his costs to bring this motion. (See, Abel Decl. 48.) B. Moti A nse to the Form Interrogatories: Fung did not serve her responses to the Form Interrogatories until June 27, 2022. (See, Abel Supp. Decl. { 13). Failure to respond to interrogatories within the 30-day time limit waives objections to the discovery, including claims of privilege and “work product” protection. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a); see Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.) (1) Analysis On May 3, 2022, Plaintiff served by mail the first set of FI's on defendant Fung. (See, Abel Decl. 95.) At the time Plaintiff filed this instant motion on June 9, 2022, Plaintiff had not received any responses to the FI's from Fung. (See, Abel Decl. §6.) Fung's lawyer McCutchan sent Fung's responses for the FI's to Plaintiff in a box post-marked June 27, 2022. (See, Abel Supp. Decl. 413.) Plaintiff received the responses on or about July 1, 2022. Ud. 414.) (2) Substantial Compliance is Required Since Fung served her FI responses late on June 27, 2022, the issue remains whether Fung's responses to the FI's are in "substantial compliance." Just like Fung's responses to the RFA's supra, Fung's lawyer McCutchan cut and pasted in the same boilerplate objections to each and every one of the FI's. (See, McCutchan Decl. Ex. 6.) The Court can see that Fung's tardy responses to the FI's are not in substantial compliance. PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT LENORA VERNE FUNG'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL 5Fung's objections were waived. (See, CCP § 2030.290(a); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes Estates, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at 394.) (3) Sanctions Plaintiff was not required to give Fung additional time to respond, and Fung has not served responses in "substantial compliance" before the hearing. Therefore the Court should grant Plaintiff's motion for a response to the FI's, and order defendant Fung to provide full and complete code-compliant responses to the FI's without objections. Sanctions are mandatory against the party who loses the motion to compel responses to discovery unless the court finds that the party acted “with substantial justification” or other circumstances that would render sanctions “unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c) [Interrogatories].) Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $130.04 to reimburse Plaintiff for his reasonable costs to bring this motion to obtain code-compliant responses from Fung. (See, Abel Decl. 48). TIL. CONCLUSION Fung is a party to this action, and has a duty to participate in discovery. Fung failed to provide her responses in a timely manner, and did not respond until June 27, 2022. Plaintiff had grounds for filing this instant motion on June 9 to obtain these responses from Fung. Fung's responses to this discovery are clearly not in substantial compliance with the discovery code. Only copied and pasted boilerplate objections were served. For the foregoing reasons, the Court must GRANT this motion. November 20, 2022 (hod Ups Richard Abel, Plaintiff PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT LENORA VERNE FUNG'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL 6POS-030 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY Richard Abel 707 Hahman Drive, No. 9301 Santa Rosa, CA 95405 TELEPHONE NO.:(707) 340-3894 FAX NO. (Optional) E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff pro per SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA street appress:600 Administration Drive, Room 107-J mauine aopress:600 Administration Drive, Room 107-J city ano zip cove:Santa Rosa, CA 95404 srancu Name:Civil Division - Dept. 10 PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: A bel RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:McCutchan, Jr. et.al. CASE NUMBER: PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL—CIVIL SCV-263456 (Do not use this Proof of Service to show service of a Summons and Complaint.) 1. lam over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. | am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took place. 2. My residence or business address is: 007-B West College Avenue, PMB 532, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 3. On (date):November 22, 2022 | mailed from (city and state): Santa Rosa, California the following documents (specify): PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT LENORA VERNE FUNG'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED, TO COMPEL RESPONSES, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Service by First-Class Mail—Civil (Documents Served) (form POS-030(D)). 4. | served the documents by enclosing them in an envelope and (check one): a. [YZ] depositing the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service with the postage fully prepaid. b. placing the envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar with this business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid 5. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: a. Name of person served: see below b. Address of person served: B.Edward McCutchan, Jr. Joseph Picchi Sunderland/ McCutchan, Inc. only by email: jpicchi@glattys.com 083 Vine Street, PMB 907 Nansi Ida Weil Healdsburg, CA 95448 only by email: nansiweil@comcast.net The name and address of each person to whom | mailed the documents is listed in the Attachment to Proof of Service by First-Class Mail—Civil (Persons Served) (POS-030(P)). | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: November 22, 2022 é : Henry Crigler » (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON COMPLETING THIS FORM) —- PERSON, Ton approveg fer Optona Use PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL Judicial Council of California POS-030 [New January 1, 2005] (Proof of Service) MPLETING THIS FORM) Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 1013, 10134 www courtinfo.ca.gov