Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV38984, Date: 2024-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38984    Hearing Date: June 11, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Andrew Arellano (Plaintiff) moves to deem admitted matters in the Requests for Admissions, Set One served on Defendant California Distribution Center, LLC (Defendant). Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions. Defendant opposes. No reply has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Where there has been no timely response to a request for admission under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.010, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants that party relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).)  The court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) 

The Discovery Act does not define “substantial compliance” in the context of service of a proposed response that complies with Code Civ. Proc., section 2033.220. The courts have ruled that “substantial compliance” means actual compliance with all matters of substance and that technical deviations are not to be given the stature of noncompliance. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779.) For example, unverified responses are not in substantial compliance. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Additionally, RFA responses must be examined in their entirety. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 780.)

Unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all, and are subject to a motion to compel responses (rather than a motion to compel further responses).¿ (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 635-36.)¿ However, objections to discovery responses do not require a verification. (See Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 656.)

Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff asserts that he served Requests for Admissions, Set One on Defendant on February 6, 2024. (Deady Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) Plaintiff granted extensions to respond until April 26, 2024. (Id. ¶ 8.) As of the date of filing this motion, Defendant has not served responses. (Id. ¶ 9.)

In opposition, Defendant asserts it intends to serve responses in substantial compliance before the hearing. Defendant explains it was unable to serve verified responses earlier because Defendant’s counsel was unable to reach a contact person for Defendant; the previous contact was no longer employed with Defendant. Counsel asserts he has since re-established contact. (Deady Decl. ¶ 7.)

However, as of today’s date, the date of the hearing, no responses have been filed with the Court for the Court’s review to determine whether they are in substantial compliance.

Even if proper responses are served prior to the hearing, monetary sanctions are mandatory.[1] Plaintiff requests $1,560.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant and counsel, representing an hourly rate of $500 and the $60 filing fee. However, given the type of motion, and the fact counsel can appear remotely at the hearing, the Court finds this amount is excessive and reduces it to $810 (1.5 hours of attorney time plus the $60 filing fee).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Matters Admitted in Request for Admissions, Set One, is granted.  

The Court further orders monetary sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $810.00. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.