Judge Curtis A. Kin, Case 21STCV11141 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV11141, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11141 Hearing Date: April 25, 2023 Dept: 72

MOTION FOR ORDER

DEEMING ADMITTED TRUTH OF FACTS

Date: 4/25/23 (8:30 AM)

Case: Michael Marble v. Dume Holding Company LLC (21STCV11141)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant/Cross-Complainant WKM Corporation’s Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Truth of Facts is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant/cross-complainant WKM Corporation (“WKM”) moves for an order deeming matters set forth in Requests for Admission, Set One admitted against plaintiff/cross-defendant Michael Marble. On April 18, 2023, after the filing of the motion, Marble served responses to Requests for Admission, Set One. WKM does not dispute that the responses are in substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220. Accordingly, pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c), the motion for an order deeming matters set forth in Requests for Admission, Set One is DENIED.

WKM also moves for monetary sanctions against Marble in the amount of $3,000. Marble had up to January 13, 2023 to serve responses to the requests for admission. (Carlin Decl. ¶ 11 & Ex. E.) As of the filing of the motion on March 30, 2023, Marble had not served responses. (Carlin Decl. ¶ 12.) Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c), Marble’s failure to serve timely responses to the requests for admission requires the imposition of sanctions against Marble.

Marble contends that, on January 9, 2023, he requested an open extension of time for him to respond to the discovery, and WKM never rejected the request. (Stavin Decl. ¶¶ 12-14.) An extension of time to respond to requests for admission “shall be confirmed in a writing that specifies the extended date for service of a response.” (CCP § 2033.260(b).) Because a specified date is required for an extension, Marble’s request for an open extension was invalid. Moreover, Marble admits that WKM did not respond to the request. (Stavin Decl. ¶¶ 13-15.) Accordingly, to the extent that parties may agree to an open extension, such an extension was never confirmed in writing.

Marble also contends that the requests for admission were improperly served because WKM never identified the alleged trade secret with reasonable particularity, as required under CCP § 2019.210. Separate and apart from whether Marble’s contention has merit, Marble was nonetheless obligated to timely assert objections based on CCP § 2033.210 or promptly move for a protective order. (CCP § 2033.080(a) [protective order]; 2033.210(b) [objections].) Marble did neither. Nothing in the text of CCP § 2019.210 supplants Marble’s statutory obligation to provide responses or objections under CCP § 2033.210 et seq. (See, e.g., CCP § 2033.210(a) [“The party to whom requests for admission have been directed shall respond in writing under oath separately to each request.”]; CCP § 2033.210(b) [“Each response shall answer the substance of the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request”].) Accordingly, Marble waived the right to withhold substantive responses on the ground that WKM did not identify the purported trade secret with reasonable particularity. (CCP § 2033.280(a).)

Marble also contends that the instant motion should be denied on grounds of equitable estoppel. The application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel here is difficult to see. “Equitable estoppel requires that: (1) the party to be estopped was aware of the operative facts and either intended that its act or omission be acted upon, or acted in such a way that the party asserting estoppel rightfully believed it was intended; and (2) the party asserting estoppel was unaware of the facts and relied on the other party’s conduct to its detriment.” (Gaines v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1081, 1097.) Even if WKM suggested a continuance of trial and never responded to Marble’s request for an open extension (Stavin Decl. ¶¶ 11-15 & Exs. E-G), WKM always asserted its right to file this motion. (See 8/12/22 email stating, “At any rate, I expect to receive responses to WKM’s set 1 of discovery to Plaintiff without objection by September 5. Unless another agreement is made before such a motion, I reserve my client’s right to file a motion to compel seeking deemed admissions to the RFAs as a matter of law in light of Defendants’ gross failure to timely object to the discovery requests as well as sanctions for refusing to submit to discovery”].) Marble was not entitled to believe that WKM had granted an open extension to respond to the requests for admission based on WKM’s failure to respond to Marble’s request.

For the foregoing reasons, Marble had until January 13, 2023 to respond to Requests for Admission, Set One. Marble did not respond until April 18, 2023, after the filing of the instant motion. Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c), WKM’s motion for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Monetary sanctions are imposed against plaintiff Michael Marble in the amount of $2,700, based on 3 hours to prepare the motion, 1.5 hours to prepare the reply, and 0.5 hours to attend the hearing (instead of the more than 9 hours claimed by WKM), all at an hourly rate of $540. Monetary sanctions shall be paid to counsel for defendant/cross-complainant WKM Corporation within thirty (30) days hereof.