Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV09516, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09516    Hearing Date: January 18, 2024    Dept: 74

Mario Tovar v. General Motors, LLC

Plaintiff Mario Tovar’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) from Defendant General Motors, LLC and Request for Sanctions.

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was timely filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b) [“All papers opposing a motion . . . shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days . . . before the hearing.”].)

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a defective 2021 Cadillac Escalade.

            On April 28, 2023, Plaintiff Mario Tovar (Plaintiff) filed this complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant).

            On June 6, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with discovery, including the requests for production of documents (RFPs).

            Defendant never responded to the RFPs at issue.

            On November 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel Defendant’s responses.

LEGAL STANDARD

¿¿            If a party to whom interrogatories or an inspection demand were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).) Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Failure to verify a response is equivalent to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) 

            If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed such a motion, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)¿

DISCUSSION 

            The court will grant this motion because Defendant never provided responses to the RFPs at issue.

CONCLUSION 

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s responses to requests for production of documents (set one). Defendant shall serve Code-compliant responses by January 28, 2024. The court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions because the request is untethered to any attorney’s fees and costs that Plaintiff may have incurred in bringing the motion.

Plaintiff shall give notice.

Mario Tovar v. General Motors, LLC

Plaintiff Mario Tovar’s Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission (Set One)

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was timely filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b) [“All papers opposing a motion . . . shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days . . . before the hearing.”].)

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a defective 2021 Cadillac Escalade.

            On April 28, 2023, Plaintiff Mario Tovar (Plaintiff) filed this complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant).

            On June 6, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with discovery, including the requests for admission (set one) (RFAs).

            Defendant never responded to the RFAs at issue.

            On November 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to deem admitted the RFAs.

LEGAL STANDARD

            If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) Further, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) ¿

            While tardy responses may defeat the motion, they will not avoid monetary sanctions. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c) [“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction [Citation] on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”].) 

DISCUSSION 

            Given Defendant’s failure to respond to the RFAs at issue, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion to deem the truth of the matters in the RFAs admitted. The court notes that Plaintiff has not requested sanctions.

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion to deem the RFAs admitted. The court awards no sanctions.