The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART AS MOOT PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL
On June 1, 2011, Plaintiff JLG Enterprises, Inc., ("JLG") filed a motion to compel based on Defendant Excalibur Sires, Inc.'s ("Excalibur") complete failure to provide responses to Plaintiff's outstanding discovery requests consisting of Interrogatories, Requests for Admission ("RFAs") and Requests for Production of Documents ("RFPs"). (Doc. 60.) Excalibur filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion and a declaration from counsel in opposition to JLG's request for sanctions on June 14, 2011. (Docs. 63, 63-1.) JLG subsequently filed a reply on July 22, 2011. (Doc. 65.)
This matter is taken under submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and the June 29, 2011, hearing is VACATED. Upon consideration of the pleadings, Plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART AS MOOT.
On September 10, 2010, JLG filed a complaint in Stanislaus County Superior Court against Excalibur, which was removed on November 15, 2010, on the basis of diversity. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Excalibur filed an answer and counterclaim on November 22, 2010, and filed an amended answer and counterclaim on April 1, 2011, pursuant to stipulation. (Docs. 6, 53-56.)
On March 22, 2011, the Court granted JLG's application for an order authorizing the sale of livestock, and on March 31, 2011, issued an order authorizing that sale. (Docs. 49, 52.) On June 14, 2011, JLG deposited the funds from the livestock sale into a trust account with the Clerk of the Court. (Doc. 64.)
JLG propounded discovery requests consisting of Interrogatories, RFPs, and RFAs, on April 6, 2011. (Doc. 62, ¶ 2.) Excalibur's responses were due no later than May 6, 2011. (Doc. 62, ¶ 3.) Excalibur did not request nor did the parties stipulate to an extension of time. (Doc. 62, ¶ 3.) JLG's counsel declares that he attempted meet and confer efforts on May 11, 13, and 23, 2011, and offered Excalibur an additional week to provide responses. (Doc. 62, ¶¶ 4-6.) Excalibur failed to respond. (Doc. 62, ¶ 3.) Accordingly, on June 1, 2011, JLG filed the instant motion.
JLG's motion seeks a Court order compelling Excalibur to provide responses to the Interrogatories, RFAs and FRPs, and seeks monetary sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 37(a)(5) and (d)(3) for attorney's fees and costs in the total amount of $2,500 as follows: $1,500 (7.5 hours x $200 per hour) to prepare the motion and to meet and confer; and $1,000 (5.0 hours x $200 per hour) for the anticipated preparation of a reply brief and attendance at the hearing for this motion. (Doc. 62, ¶ 7.) JLG also seeks an appropriate monetary sanction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 37(d)(A) and (B) based on Excalibur's abuse of the discovery process for its complete failure to respond to the discovery requests. (Doc. 61, 5:3-26.)
On June 14, 2011, Excalibur filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion and a declaration from counsel in opposition to the requested sanctions. (Docs. 63, 63-1.) JLG filed a reply on June 22, 2011.
A. JLG's Requests for Admission
The failure to timely respond to RFAs results in automatic admission of the matters requested. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 36(a)(3). "No motion to establish the admissions is needed because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a) is self executing." Fed. Trade Comm. v. Medicor LLC, 217 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1053 (C.D. Cal. 2002); Garcia v. City of Ceres, No. CV F 08-1720 LJO SKO, 2010 WL 2490917, at *4 n.5 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2010). Once admitted, the matter is conclusively established "unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended." Fed. R. ...