Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: De Witte Mortgage Investors Fund LLC v Duringer et al, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Before the Court at present are two motions, both filed by Defendants Anthony Burton and AWB Law, PC (here as moving parties, “MPs”), against Plaintiff De Witte Mortgage Investors Fund LLC (“Plaintiff”) as follows:

(1)  MP’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted, filed on 4/19/23 (“Motion 1” below); and

(2) MP’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Documents, filed on 4/18/23 (Motion 2” below).

On Motion 1 (ROA 52), the Motion is DENIED as to the request to deem the Requests for Admission, Set One (here the “RFAs”) admitted.

Plaintiff belatedly provided responses which, on the whole, adequately comply with C.C.P. § 2033.220. (See C.C.P. § 2033.280(c) [“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}] and St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 783 [responses are substantially compliant if the responses as a whole generally comply].)  This is so even though the tardy responses improperly included objections in the “preliminary statement” after all objections had been waived, and omitted a response to RFA No. 26: those defects must be addressed in a future motion, after an appropriate effort to meet and confer, under C.C.P. § 2033.290.

However, MP’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff, under C.C.P. § 2033.280(c), is GRANTED in the amount of $575. Plaintiff is to pay those sanctions to MPs, through their counsel of record, within 15 days after service of notice of this ruling.

On Motion 2 (ROA 48), the Motion is GRANTED IN PART. 

As no responses were timely provided to the Requests for Production, Set One (here the “RFPs”), all objections thereto were waived.  (C.C.P. §2030.290(a), (b).)  Yet the responses which were belatedly served while this Motion was pending nonetheless included objections in the “preliminary statement.”

In addition, the substantive responses failed to comply with C.C.P. § 2031.210(a). The fact that responses were belatedly served does not prevent this Court from ruling on the Motion. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405-409.)  Plaintiff is therefore ordered to provide complete supplemental responses to the RFPs, without any preliminary or other objections, which actually comply with C.C.P. § 2031.210 et seq., within 15 days after service of notice of this ruling.

MP’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff, under C.C.P. § 2031.300(c), is GRANTED in the amount of $460. Plaintiff is to pay those sanctions to MPs, through their counsel of record, within 15 days after service of notice of this ruling.

Counsel for MPs is to give notice of these rulings.