Plaintiff served a set of RFPs, Interrogatories, and RFAs on February 10, 2021. See Dkt. 33-4. Plaintiff's discovery was served by U.S. Mail to the address of record for Defendant's counsel. See id.[1] When Defendant did not file responses to Plaintiff's discovery, Plaintiff's counsel mailed a letter to Defendant's counsel requesting a conference under Local Rule 37-1 as to Plaintiff's RFPs, interrogatories, and RFAs as well as Defendant's failure to make any initial disclosures as required under Rule 26(a)(1)(C). See Dkt. 33-6. Plaintiff's counsel also emailed a copy of the letter to Defendant's counsel. See Dkt. 33-7.

Plaintiff's counsel received no response to its letter requesting a Local Rule 37-1 conference. See Dkt. 33-2 at 4. Accordingly, as permitted under the Local Rules, Plaintiff's counsel prepared and filed the instant motion to compel without a joint stipulation. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 37-2.4 (providing that counsel may file a discovery motion without a joint stipulation so long as motion is accompanied by a declaration that establishes that opposing counsel failed to confer in a timely manner under Local Rule 37-1). Plaintiff's motion was noticed for hearing on July 27, 2021. See Dkt. 33 at 1.

Defendant has not filed an opposition to the motion.[2] The Court finds that matter can be decided without oral argument. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. The hearing is therefore VACATED.

RFPs and Interrogatories. It appears from the record that Defendant has failed to file any response to Plaintiff's properly-served RFPs and interrogatories. An order compelling Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's RFPs and interrogatories is warranted under the Federal Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). Plaintiff's objections are waived. See Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992) (“It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection.”). In addition, the Court deems Defendant's failure to file an opposition as consent to granting of Plaintiff's motion. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12.

Plaintiff's motion is accordingly GRANTED as to Plaintiff's RFPs and Interrogatories and Defendant is ORDERED to serve within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order the following: (a) responses without objections to Plaintiff's RFPs as well as copies of any responsive documents and (b) verified responses without objections to Plaintiff's Interrogatories.

*2 RFAs. Plaintiff also seeks an order deeming the subject matter of each RFA admitted. But failure to respond to RFAs results in an automatic admission of the matters requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3) (“A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.”). This rule is self-executing; no motion is required. See id.

Initial Disclosures. Finally, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to make adequate initial disclosures. Again, the record does not show any initial disclosures were made. And Defendant has not opposed the motion. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12. To not further delay and impede the progress of this case, Defendant is ordered to produce its initial disclosures within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. However, this Court will not grant Plaintiff's request that Defendant be precluded from calling witness or using documents at trial that it has failed to disclose. However, that remedy remains a potential one for Defendant's failure to make its initial disclosures in accordance with this Court's order. In addition, any further failure by Defendant to respond to discovery or comply with the Court's orders may subject Defendant to additional sanctions, which could include evidentiary and/or terminating sanctions.

Monetary Sanctions. Rule 37(a)(5) provides that the prevailing party on a discovery motion is entitled to an award of its reasonable expenses incurred in bringing or opposing the motion, including attorney's fees, except no payment should be ordered if: (1) the motion was filed before the moving party made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute; (2) the losing party's position was substantially justified; or (3) other circumstances make award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5). Defendant has disregarded its discovery obligations and ignored Plaintiff's efforts to meet and confer, causing an uncontested discovery motion to come before this Court. Defendant's failure to respond to the motion leaves the Court with no justification for its failures. The Court therefore finds that monetary sanctions are appropriate.

Plaintiff seeks attorney's fees incurred in bringing the instant motion. See Dkt. 33-2 at 4-5. Plaintiff's counsel states that he spent 1.8 hours attempting to meet and confer and then 4.2 hours researching and drafting the instant motion. See id. Plaintiff's counsel seeks an hourly rate of $495.00. See id. Although the rules do not contemplate an award of expenses related to meet and confer efforts, the 4.2 hours spent by counsel on the instant motion is reasonable, particularly when the time wasted attempting to meet and confer as required by the Local Rules with a non-responsive opponent is considered. Counsel's hourly rate is also reasonable. The Court therefore finds Plaintiff is entitled to $2,079.00 in attorney's fees (4.2 hours at an hourly rate of $495.00). Defendant and/or Defendant's counsel is ORDERED to pay sanctions of $2,079.00 to Plaintiff on or before August 6, 2021.