Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 24STCV16447, Date: 2025-01-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV16447    Hearing Date: January 15, 2025    Dept: 55

24STCV16447

Lesser v. Department of Public Health, et al.

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Establishing Admissions and for Sanctions

On December 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed this this motion to have the RFAs deemed admitted and for sanctions. On December 13, 2024, Defendant served objections and responses to the RFAs. Defendant therefore no longer seeks to have the RFAs deemed admitted but still requests monetary sanctions. Defendant opposes the motion.

CCP Section 2033.280(c) provides that if a party does not timely respond to RFAs, it is “mandatory” that the Court impose a monetary sanction on the responding party. Here, the parties agreed to several extensions for Defendant’s response to the RFAs. The last agreed-upon extension was to December 10, 2024. It is undisputed that Defendant did not serve the RFA responses on December 10. Defense counsel instead informed opposing counsel in an email that Defendant required “a few additional days to serve verifications to verified our written discovery responses.” Don Decl., Ex. F. Defense counsel did not request any specific extension of time and thus Plaintiff’s counsel had no extension of time to consider. Defendant’s later service of the RFA responses may have saved Defendant from having the matters deemed admitted but the late responses does not save Defendant from the mandatory monetary sanction.

Contrary to Defendant’s contention, Plaintiff had no obligation under the CCP to meet and confer with Plaintiff prior to filing a motion to have the RFAs deemed admitted. Defendant had an agreed-upon deadline to serve the responses and when it did not do so, Plaintiff had the right to go ahead and file the motion without meeting and conferring on the lack of responses. The plain language of Section 2033.280(c) makes clear that mandatory sanctions against a party who fails to serve timely RFA responses applies even when that party eventually serves compliant responses.

The Court therefore grants the motion’s amended request for sanctions against Defendant and its counsel.

Plaintiff requests $1,995 in fees and costs, based on an hourly rate of $550. The Court concludes that 1.5 hours for each brief (motion and reply) is a reasonable amount of time spent on the motion, which totals $1,720 (3 hours plus $70 in costs). Defendant and its counsel shall pay those sanctions to Plaintiff within 30 days.

The Court notes that Defendant’s late responses improperly contained objections along with substantive responses. CCP Section 2033.280(a) provides that a party who fails to serve a timely response waives objections to the RFAs. The Court may relieve a party from the waiver if the party subsequently serves substantially compliant responses and the failure to serve timely responses is due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. While Defendant did serve verified, substantive responses to the RFAs, Defendant has made no showing of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect as the reason for the untimely responses. Defense counsel cavalierly pronounced to Plaintiff’s counsel that the responses would not be served on the agreed-upon deadline. Defense counsel did not ask or receive any specific extension of time. Defense counsel knew or should have known that no agreement existed to serve the responses past December 10. Thus, failure to serve the responses timely was not a mistake, or inadvertent, or the result of neglect. It was a choice made by counsel and they must live with the consequences. The Court therefore denies any request by Defendant for relief from the waiver, and Defendant must also serve supplemental verified responses to the RFAs with no objections within 30 days.