Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV07199, Date: 2023-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 21STCV07199    Hearing Date: August 8, 2023    Dept: 52

Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Motions to: (1) Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, (2) Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, (3) Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, and (4) Deem Admitted the Truth of All Specified Matters in Requests for Admissions

(1-3) Motions to Compel Responses

Defendant Ford Motor Company moves to compel plaintiff Raymond Gutierrez to respond to form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and requests for production, set one.  When the responding party fails to timely respond to interrogatories or requests for production, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(b) [interrogatories]; 2031.300(b) [request for production].)  Failing to timely respond waives any objections.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(a); 2031.300(a).) 

Plaintiff concedes he did not timely respond to these discovery requests.  He therefore waived all objections to them.  Initially, plaintiff’s untimely responses included only objections.  (Ross Decls., ¶ 3, Ex. B.)  After defendant filed these motions, however, plaintiff served verified supplemental responses.  (Sanaia Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 1.)  These responses begin, “Subject to, and without waiving any of the foregoing objections, … Plaintiff Responds as follows:”, then continue to state substantive answers.  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff therefore has served responses, and the motions to compel responses are moot—except for the matter of his objections.  Plaintiff waived all objections because he did not timely respond.  He did not move for relief from that waiver as required under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(a) and 2031.300(a).  Plaintiff’s objections are therefore overruled. 

Defendant Ford Motor Company’s motions to compel plaintiff Raymond Gutierrez to respond to form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and requests for production, set one are granted in part only as to overruling plaintiff’s objections.  Plaintiff’s objections to form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and requests for production, set one are overruled.  Plaintiff is not required to serve further responses.

(4) Motion to Deem Truth of Matters Admitted

            Defendant Ford Motor Company moves for an order deeming admitted the truth of the matters specified in its requests for admissions, set one.  If a party fails to timely respond to requests for admission, “[t]he requesting 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.”  (CCP § 2033.280(b).)  “The court shall make this order, 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.”  (CCP § 2033.280(c).)

Plaintiff served substantially compliant proposed responses before the hearing on this motion.  (Sanaia Decl., Ex. 1.)  The verified supplemental responses each include a “complete and straightforward” response as required.  (CCP § 2033.220(a).)  To all requests, plaintiff substantively responded simply, “Deny” (Nos. 1-16, 18-25) or “Admit” (No. 17).  The proposed responses satisfy the “substantial compliance” requirement under section 2033.280(c).  The court therefore cannot order the matters deemed admitted. 

            Defendant Ford Motor Company’s motion to deem admitted the truth of the matters specified in its requests for admissions, set one, is denied.