Legal Question in Business Law in California

If the defendants don't answer, it either means that the plaintiff is entitled to entry of default and a default judgment, in which case there should be no need to serve discovery; or it means the plaintiff's request for a default judgment will be rejected because the plaintiff is a pro per who doesn't know what he is doing.

The attorney's statement is a "non sequitur." The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

In addition to the possibilites mentioned by Mr. Stone (with which I agree), if the defendants did answer in pro. per., discovery should be served on them, and if an attorney filed an answer for them, discovery must be served on the attorney.

A defendant that has not answered is not a party. If you need discovery from a non-party, including a defaulting defendant, you are limited as to methods of discovery - you can subpoena documents and/or depose them, all under different rules than apply to discovery from a party.

However, a plaintiff in such a position needs to exercise sound, legally-informed reasoning in deciding whether to take the defendant's default, pursue discovery, or both, and in what sequence. Often, it may be best to take the default, get a default judgment, and then if that does not dispose of the entire case, subpoena the person.