Preview
1 ROB BONTA
Attomey General of Califomia
2 RUSSELL B . HILDRETH
Supervising Deputy Attomey General FILED/ES^OORSED
3 ANDREA M . KENDRICK State Bar No. 225688
COURTNEY S. COVINGTON, State Bar No. 259723
4 Deputy Attomeys General SEP 2 8 2022
1300 I Street, Suite 125
5 P.O. Box 944255 By: E. Macdonald
Deoury Clerk
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
6 Telephone: (916)210-7821
Fax: (916)327-2319
7 E-mail: Ajidrea.Kendrick@doj.ca.gov
8 Attorneys for Defendants Exempt from Filing Fees
Pursuant to Gov. Code § 6103
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
11
12
13
FIRE GUARD CORPORATION; Case No. 34-2019-00249221-CU-CR-GDS
14 BAHMAN BRIAN SHAHANGIAN, an
individual; and CALIFORNIA FIRE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
15 PROTECTION COALITION, a California AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
Corporation; and JUAN CARLOS DEL DEFENDANTS' MOTION (A) TO
16 TORO TREJO, an individual, COMPEL PLAINTIFFS FIRE GUARD
CORPORATION, BAHMAN BRIAN
17 Plaintiffs, SHAHANGIAN, AND JUAN CARLOS DEL
TORO TREJO TO PROVIDE RESPONSES
18 TO (1) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
(SET ONE), (2) FORM
19 INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE), AND (3)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
20 FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION; DOCUMENTS (SET ONE); AND (B) FOR
CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE STATE AN ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED THE
21 FIRE MARSHAL; MIKE RICHWINE, in REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE)
his official capacity as State Fire Marshal;
22 JEFFERY SCHWARTZ, in his official Date: October 27, 2022
capacity as Deputy State Fire Marshal; and Time: 1:30 p.m.
23 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Dept.: 53
Trial Date: December 18, 2023
24 Defendants. Action Filed: January 25,2019
25 Reservation No.: 2663593
26
27
28
Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel (34-2019-00249221)
1 INTRODUCTION
2 Plaintiffs Fire Guard Corporation, Bahman Brian Shahangian, and Juan Carlos Del Toro
3 Trejo (collectively Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs) have not served objections or
4 responses to the discovery propounded on them in this action by defendant Office of the State
5 Fire Marshal (OSFM), even though the time to do so pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure,
6 plus an agreed upon extension, have passed.' Accordingly, this Court should grant the OSFM's
7 motion and issue the following orders:
^ • Compel Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs to respond to the OSFM's Special
^ Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of
Documents (Set One), and order that all objections to these requests are waived; and
11
• Deem admitted the tmth of the matters specified in the OSFM's Request for Admission
12
(Set One) to Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs, and order that all objections to the
13
request are waived.
14
BACKGROUND
15
I. O V E R V I E W OF T H I S A C T I O N
16
17 This lawsuit is a challenge to regulations adopted by the Office of the State Fire Marshal
18 (OSFM) as Califomia Code of Regulafions, title 19, Chapter 5.5, sections 920-948 (Regulations)
19 The Regulations establish a program for certifying individuals who install, alter, repair, or add
20 appurtenances to water-based fire protection systems. Plaintiffs' operative first amended
21 complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief consists of seven causes of action. Plaintiffs' first
22 through fifth causes of action are for declaratory relief, asserting constitutional and civil rights
23 challenges pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983.
24 ///
25 ///
26
' This motion does not concem plaintiff Califomia Fire Protection Coalition (Coalition),
27 which is represented by separate counsel and timely responded to separate discovery requests the
OSFM served on the Coalition.
28
Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel (34-2019-00249221)
1 II. FIRE GUARD AND THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS D I D NOT RESPOND OR OBJECT TO
THE OSFM'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS W I T H I N
THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED T I M E ,
2 PLUS AN AGREED UPON EXTENSION.
3 On August 28, 2020, the OSFM served Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form
4 Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), and Requests for
5 Admission (Set One) on Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs by United States mail.
6 (Declaration of Andrea M. Kendrick in Support of Motion to Compel (Kendrick Decl.) f 2, Exh.
7 A.) By statute, plaintiffs' objections or responses were due on or before October 2, 2020. (Code
8 Civ. Proc, § 2033.250, subd. (a) [responses to requests for admission due within 30 days]; Code
9 Civ. Proc, § 2030.260, subd. (a) [responses to interrogatories due within 30 days]; Code Civ.
10 Proc, § 2031.260, subd. (a) [responses to request for production due within 30 days]; see also
11 Code Civ. Proc, § 1013, subd. (a) [extending time to respond by five days when served by mail].)
12 Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs requested an extension to November 2, 2020, to respond
13 to the discovery requests, which the OSFM granted. (Kendrick Decl. 13, Exh.B.) Fire Guard
14 and the Individual Plaintiffs did not object to or respond to any of the discovery requests nor did
15 they seek or receive another extension of time before or on November 2, 2020, to respond.
16 (Kendrick Decl. 4.) In March 2021, the parties agreed to a stay of discovery until after June 30,
17 2021, which was ultimately extended to the last part of 2021. (Kendrick Decl. ]| 5.) During the
18 stay, counsel for Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs requested confirmation that his clients
19 could respond to the outstanding discovery after the stay, and counsel for the OSFM responded
20 by confirming that when the stay on discovery ends, the OSFM reserves its right to seek
21 appropriate relief regarding Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs' failure to respond.
22 (Kendrick Decl. ^ 6, Exh. C.) Despite the fact that no responses were served, defense counsel
23 tried to avoid filing this motion to compel by sending a meet and confer letter on January 11,
24 2022, to counsel for Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs, requesting that they respond to the
25 OSFM's discovery requests on or before Febmary 10, 2022, and that if they did not the OSFM
26 would seek relief from the Court. (Kendrick Decl. ^ 1, Exh. D.) Fire Guard and the Individual
27 Plaintiffs did not respond to the letter. (Kendrick Decl. | 8.) Defense counsel then sent an email
28
3
Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel (34-2019-00249221)
1 to counsel for Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs on March 8, 2022, asking if Fire Guard and
2 the Individual Plaintiffs provided a response to the outstanding discovery requests. (Kendrick
3 Decl. 9, Exh. E.) As of the date of the filing of this motion. Fire Guard and the Individual
4 Plaintiffs have not responded to the OSFM's discovery requests or to defendants' January 11,
5 2022 letter or the March 8, 2022 email regarding responding to discovery. (Kendrick Decl. ^ 10.)
6 ARGUMENT
7 I. FIRE GUARD AND THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS SHOULD B E COMPELLED TO
RESPOND TO THE OSFM's INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS,
8 WITHOUT OBJECTIONS.
9 Fire Guard and the Individual Defendants have not provided any responses to the
10 interrogatories or document requests served by the OSFM, therefore, they should be compelled to
11 respond. Where a party to whom interrogatories and a demand for production of documents is
12 directed fails to serve a timely response, such as in this case, the party making the demand may
13 move for an order compelling a response to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (b);
14 Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for the motion to compel and the
15 moving party is not required to show either good cause or that it satisfied a meet and confer
16 requirement before filing a motion. (See, e.g., Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific
17 Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 [also citing currently numbered Cal.
18 Rules of Court, mle 3.1345(b) [a separate statement is not required when no response has been
19 provided to the request for discovery].) A party who fails to timely respond to interrogatories or
20 document requests waives any objections to the requests, including one based on privilege or on
21 the protection for work product. {Sinaiko Healthcare, at pp. 403-404, citing Code Civ. Proc, §
22 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc, § 2031.300, subd. (a).)
23 The OSFM is entitled to an order compelling Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs to
24 respond to the Special Interrogatories (Set One), the Form Interrogatories (Set One), and the
25 Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), without objections. As set forth above, on
26 August 28, 2020, the OSFM served form and special interrogatories and document requests on
27 Fire Guard and the Individual Plainfiffs by United States mail. (Kendrick Deck, 2, part of Exh.
28 A) The responses were due on November 2, 2020, with service by mail, plus an extension
4
Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel (34-2019-00249221)
1 granted by the OSFM. (Kendrick Deck, T| 3, Exh. B.) Fire Guard failed to respond to either set of
2 interrogatories or the document requests, and did not seek an additional extension of time to
^3 respond on or before the November 2, 2020, agreed upon deadline to respond. (Kendrick Deck, ^
4 4.) While there is no requirement to meet and confer when a party provides no response to
5 discovery requests, as explained above, defense counsel sent a letter on January 11, 2022, to
6 counsel for Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs requesting that they respond to the OSFM's
7 discovery requests on or before Febmary 10, 2022. (Kendrick Decl. ^ 1, Exh. D.) As of the date
8 of the filing of this motion, Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs have not responded to the
9 OSFM's discovery requests or to Defendants' letter. (Kendrick Decl. 10.)
10 II. T H E OSFM'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION SHOULD B E DEEMED ADMITTED AND ANY
OBJECTIONS WAIVED.
11
12 Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs have not responded with objections or responses to
13 the OSFM's request for admission, therefore, the request should be deemed admitted and any
14 objecfions waived. Code Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), provides that "[i]f a
15 party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response,... [t]he
16 requesting party may move for an order that... the tmth of any matters specified in the requests
17 be deemed admitted." Failure to timely respond to requests for admission results in a waiver of
18 all objections to the requests, including claims of privilege and work product protection. (Code
19 Civ. Proc § 2033.280, subd. (a).)
20 As explained above, the OSFM served a Request for Admission (Set One) on Fire Guard
21 and the Individual Plaintiffs by United States mail on August 28, 2020, consisting of one request.
22 (Kendrick Deck, \ 2, part of Exh. A.) The request asked Fire Guard and the Individual Plainfiffs
23 to admit that they have no evidence to support their claim in paragraph 51 of the First Amended
24 Complaint that "most C-16 fire protection contractors have existing contractual agreements with
25 property owners for commercial fire sprinkler work, which were executed prior to the effective
26 date of the regulations and are ongoing." {Ibid.) The response was due on November 2, 2020,
27 with service by mail, plus an extension granted by the OSFM. (Kendrick Deck, 13, Exh. B.)
28 Fire Guard failed to respond to the request and did not seek an additional extension of time to
5
Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel (34-2019-00249221)
1 respond on or before the November 2, 2020, agreed upon deadline to respond. (Kendrick Deck, ^
2 4.) There is no requirement to meet and confer and there is no time limit on the motion because
3 Fire Guard and the Individual Defendants failed to respond. (See Code Civ. Proc, § 2033.280
4 [provides no meet and confer requirement or time limit].) As of the date of the filing of this
5 motion, Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs have not responded to the OSFM's request for
6 admission. (Kendrick Decl. T| 10.)
7 Accordingly, the OSFM's request for admission to Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs
8 should be deemed admitted and all objections to the request waived.
9 CONCLUSION
10 The OSFM requests that the Court issue an order (1) compelling Fire Guard and the
11 Individual Plaintiffs to respond within 10 days to the OSFM's Special Interrogatories (Set One),
12 Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and that all
13 objections to the requests are waived; and (2) that the request in the OSFM's Requests for
14 Admission (Set One) is deemed admitted and that all objections to the request are waived.
15 Dated: September 28, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
16 ROB BONTA
Attomey General of Califomia
17 RUSSELL B . HILDRETH
Supervising Deputy Attomey General
18
19
20
ANDREA M. BCENDRICK
21 Deputy Attomey General
Attorneys for Defendants
22
23 SA2019300028
36103872.docx
24
25
26
27
28
Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel (34-2019-00249221)
Preview
1 ROB BONTA Attomey General of Califomia 2 RUSSELL B . HILDRETH Supervising Deputy Attomey General FILED/ES^OORSED 3 ANDREA M . KENDRICK State Bar No. 225688 COURTNEY S. COVINGTON, State Bar No. 259723 4 Deputy Attomeys General SEP 2 8 2022 1300 I Street, Suite 125 5 P.O. Box 944255 By: E. Macdonald Deoury Clerk Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 6 Telephone: (916)210-7821 Fax: (916)327-2319 7 E-mail: Ajidrea.Kendrick@doj.ca.gov 8 Attorneys for Defendants Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Gov. Code § 6103 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 11 12 13 FIRE GUARD CORPORATION; Case No. 34-2019-00249221-CU-CR-GDS 14 BAHMAN BRIAN SHAHANGIAN, an individual; and CALIFORNIA FIRE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 15 PROTECTION COALITION, a California AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF Corporation; and JUAN CARLOS DEL DEFENDANTS' MOTION (A) TO 16 TORO TREJO, an individual, COMPEL PLAINTIFFS FIRE GUARD CORPORATION, BAHMAN BRIAN 17 Plaintiffs, SHAHANGIAN, AND JUAN CARLOS DEL TORO TREJO TO PROVIDE RESPONSES 18 TO (1) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE), (2) FORM 19 INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE), AND (3) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 20 FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION; DOCUMENTS (SET ONE); AND (B) FOR CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE STATE AN ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED THE 21 FIRE MARSHAL; MIKE RICHWINE, in REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE) his official capacity as State Fire Marshal; 22 JEFFERY SCHWARTZ, in his official Date: October 27, 2022 capacity as Deputy State Fire Marshal; and Time: 1:30 p.m. 23 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Dept.: 53 Trial Date: December 18, 2023 24 Defendants. Action Filed: January 25,2019 25 Reservation No.: 2663593 26 27 28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel (34-2019-00249221) 1 INTRODUCTION 2 Plaintiffs Fire Guard Corporation, Bahman Brian Shahangian, and Juan Carlos Del Toro 3 Trejo (collectively Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs) have not served objections or 4 responses to the discovery propounded on them in this action by defendant Office of the State 5 Fire Marshal (OSFM), even though the time to do so pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, 6 plus an agreed upon extension, have passed.' Accordingly, this Court should grant the OSFM's 7 motion and issue the following orders: ^ • Compel Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs to respond to the OSFM's Special ^ Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One), and order that all objections to these requests are waived; and 11 • Deem admitted the tmth of the matters specified in the OSFM's Request for Admission 12 (Set One) to Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs, and order that all objections to the 13 request are waived. 14 BACKGROUND 15 I. O V E R V I E W OF T H I S A C T I O N 16 17 This lawsuit is a challenge to regulations adopted by the Office of the State Fire Marshal 18 (OSFM) as Califomia Code of Regulafions, title 19, Chapter 5.5, sections 920-948 (Regulations) 19 The Regulations establish a program for certifying individuals who install, alter, repair, or add 20 appurtenances to water-based fire protection systems. Plaintiffs' operative first amended 21 complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief consists of seven causes of action. Plaintiffs' first 22 through fifth causes of action are for declaratory relief, asserting constitutional and civil rights 23 challenges pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. 24 /// 25 /// 26 ' This motion does not concem plaintiff Califomia Fire Protection Coalition (Coalition), 27 which is represented by separate counsel and timely responded to separate discovery requests the OSFM served on the Coalition. 28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel (34-2019-00249221) 1 II. FIRE GUARD AND THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS D I D NOT RESPOND OR OBJECT TO THE OSFM'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS W I T H I N THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED T I M E , 2 PLUS AN AGREED UPON EXTENSION. 3 On August 28, 2020, the OSFM served Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form 4 Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), and Requests for 5 Admission (Set One) on Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs by United States mail. 6 (Declaration of Andrea M. Kendrick in Support of Motion to Compel (Kendrick Decl.) f 2, Exh. 7 A.) By statute, plaintiffs' objections or responses were due on or before October 2, 2020. (Code 8 Civ. Proc, § 2033.250, subd. (a) [responses to requests for admission due within 30 days]; Code 9 Civ. Proc, § 2030.260, subd. (a) [responses to interrogatories due within 30 days]; Code Civ. 10 Proc, § 2031.260, subd. (a) [responses to request for production due within 30 days]; see also 11 Code Civ. Proc, § 1013, subd. (a) [extending time to respond by five days when served by mail].) 12 Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs requested an extension to November 2, 2020, to respond 13 to the discovery requests, which the OSFM granted. (Kendrick Decl. 13, Exh.B.) Fire Guard 14 and the Individual Plaintiffs did not object to or respond to any of the discovery requests nor did 15 they seek or receive another extension of time before or on November 2, 2020, to respond. 16 (Kendrick Decl. 4.) In March 2021, the parties agreed to a stay of discovery until after June 30, 17 2021, which was ultimately extended to the last part of 2021. (Kendrick Decl. ]| 5.) During the 18 stay, counsel for Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs requested confirmation that his clients 19 could respond to the outstanding discovery after the stay, and counsel for the OSFM responded 20 by confirming that when the stay on discovery ends, the OSFM reserves its right to seek 21 appropriate relief regarding Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs' failure to respond. 22 (Kendrick Decl. ^ 6, Exh. C.) Despite the fact that no responses were served, defense counsel 23 tried to avoid filing this motion to compel by sending a meet and confer letter on January 11, 24 2022, to counsel for Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs, requesting that they respond to the 25 OSFM's discovery requests on or before Febmary 10, 2022, and that if they did not the OSFM 26 would seek relief from the Court. (Kendrick Decl. ^ 1, Exh. D.) Fire Guard and the Individual 27 Plaintiffs did not respond to the letter. (Kendrick Decl. | 8.) Defense counsel then sent an email 28 3 Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel (34-2019-00249221) 1 to counsel for Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs on March 8, 2022, asking if Fire Guard and 2 the Individual Plaintiffs provided a response to the outstanding discovery requests. (Kendrick 3 Decl. 9, Exh. E.) As of the date of the filing of this motion. Fire Guard and the Individual 4 Plaintiffs have not responded to the OSFM's discovery requests or to defendants' January 11, 5 2022 letter or the March 8, 2022 email regarding responding to discovery. (Kendrick Decl. ^ 10.) 6 ARGUMENT 7 I. FIRE GUARD AND THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS SHOULD B E COMPELLED TO RESPOND TO THE OSFM's INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS, 8 WITHOUT OBJECTIONS. 9 Fire Guard and the Individual Defendants have not provided any responses to the 10 interrogatories or document requests served by the OSFM, therefore, they should be compelled to 11 respond. Where a party to whom interrogatories and a demand for production of documents is 12 directed fails to serve a timely response, such as in this case, the party making the demand may 13 move for an order compelling a response to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (b); 14 Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for the motion to compel and the 15 moving party is not required to show either good cause or that it satisfied a meet and confer 16 requirement before filing a motion. (See, e.g., Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific 17 Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 [also citing currently numbered Cal. 18 Rules of Court, mle 3.1345(b) [a separate statement is not required when no response has been 19 provided to the request for discovery].) A party who fails to timely respond to interrogatories or 20 document requests waives any objections to the requests, including one based on privilege or on 21 the protection for work product. {Sinaiko Healthcare, at pp. 403-404, citing Code Civ. Proc, § 22 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc, § 2031.300, subd. (a).) 23 The OSFM is entitled to an order compelling Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs to 24 respond to the Special Interrogatories (Set One), the Form Interrogatories (Set One), and the 25 Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), without objections. As set forth above, on 26 August 28, 2020, the OSFM served form and special interrogatories and document requests on 27 Fire Guard and the Individual Plainfiffs by United States mail. (Kendrick Deck, 2, part of Exh. 28 A) The responses were due on November 2, 2020, with service by mail, plus an extension 4 Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel (34-2019-00249221) 1 granted by the OSFM. (Kendrick Deck, T| 3, Exh. B.) Fire Guard failed to respond to either set of 2 interrogatories or the document requests, and did not seek an additional extension of time to ^3 respond on or before the November 2, 2020, agreed upon deadline to respond. (Kendrick Deck, ^ 4 4.) While there is no requirement to meet and confer when a party provides no response to 5 discovery requests, as explained above, defense counsel sent a letter on January 11, 2022, to 6 counsel for Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs requesting that they respond to the OSFM's 7 discovery requests on or before Febmary 10, 2022. (Kendrick Decl. ^ 1, Exh. D.) As of the date 8 of the filing of this motion, Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs have not responded to the 9 OSFM's discovery requests or to Defendants' letter. (Kendrick Decl. 10.) 10 II. T H E OSFM'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION SHOULD B E DEEMED ADMITTED AND ANY OBJECTIONS WAIVED. 11 12 Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs have not responded with objections or responses to 13 the OSFM's request for admission, therefore, the request should be deemed admitted and any 14 objecfions waived. Code Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), provides that "[i]f a 15 party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response,... [t]he 16 requesting party may move for an order that... the tmth of any matters specified in the requests 17 be deemed admitted." Failure to timely respond to requests for admission results in a waiver of 18 all objections to the requests, including claims of privilege and work product protection. (Code 19 Civ. Proc § 2033.280, subd. (a).) 20 As explained above, the OSFM served a Request for Admission (Set One) on Fire Guard 21 and the Individual Plaintiffs by United States mail on August 28, 2020, consisting of one request. 22 (Kendrick Deck, \ 2, part of Exh. A.) The request asked Fire Guard and the Individual Plainfiffs 23 to admit that they have no evidence to support their claim in paragraph 51 of the First Amended 24 Complaint that "most C-16 fire protection contractors have existing contractual agreements with 25 property owners for commercial fire sprinkler work, which were executed prior to the effective 26 date of the regulations and are ongoing." {Ibid.) The response was due on November 2, 2020, 27 with service by mail, plus an extension granted by the OSFM. (Kendrick Deck, 13, Exh. B.) 28 Fire Guard failed to respond to the request and did not seek an additional extension of time to 5 Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel (34-2019-00249221) 1 respond on or before the November 2, 2020, agreed upon deadline to respond. (Kendrick Deck, ^ 2 4.) There is no requirement to meet and confer and there is no time limit on the motion because 3 Fire Guard and the Individual Defendants failed to respond. (See Code Civ. Proc, § 2033.280 4 [provides no meet and confer requirement or time limit].) As of the date of the filing of this 5 motion, Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs have not responded to the OSFM's request for 6 admission. (Kendrick Decl. T| 10.) 7 Accordingly, the OSFM's request for admission to Fire Guard and the Individual Plaintiffs 8 should be deemed admitted and all objections to the request waived. 9 CONCLUSION 10 The OSFM requests that the Court issue an order (1) compelling Fire Guard and the 11 Individual Plaintiffs to respond within 10 days to the OSFM's Special Interrogatories (Set One), 12 Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and that all 13 objections to the requests are waived; and (2) that the request in the OSFM's Requests for 14 Admission (Set One) is deemed admitted and that all objections to the request are waived. 15 Dated: September 28, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 16 ROB BONTA Attomey General of Califomia 17 RUSSELL B . HILDRETH Supervising Deputy Attomey General 18 19 20 ANDREA M. BCENDRICK 21 Deputy Attomey General Attorneys for Defendants 22 23 SA2019300028 36103872.docx 24 25 26 27 28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel (34-2019-00249221)