Judge: Cynthia A Freeland, Case: 37-2020-00038603-CU-DF-NC, Date: 2023-12-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 30, 2023

12/01/2023  01:30:00 PM  N-27 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Cynthia A. Freeland

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Defamation Discovery Hearing 37-2020-00038603-CU-DF-NC WILFRED VS. VIJAYRAGHAVAN [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 08/04/2023

Defendant Vasu Vijayraghavan ('Defendant')'s motion to compel Plaintiff Vincent Wilfred ('Plaintiff') to provide responses to Requests for Admission (Set One) (the 'Discovery Request'), and for sanctions, is granted in part and denied in part.

Initially, the court notes that Plaintiff's opposition was untimely. The evidence shows that Defendant served the moving papers via U.S. mail on August 4, 2023. Considering the court holidays on November 23 and 24, 2023, Plaintiff's opposition was due no later than November 13, 2023. See Cal. Code Civ. P. §§ 1005(b), 1013(a). He did not file his opposition until November 21, 2023. See ROA No. 108. At the same time, however, Defendant did not properly serve Plaintiff with the moving papers. According to the proof of service, Defendant served Plaintiff at '6119 Roberts Lane, Eitiwanda, CA 91739.' See ROA No.

95. Plaintiff's address, however, as reflected on all submissions to the court has been '6116 Roberts Place, Etiwanda, CA 91739.' Consequently, the court does not have a valid proof of service reflecting proper service of the moving papers upon Plaintiff. See Cal. Code Civ. P. § 1005(b). In this instance, the court exercises its discretion and will proceed to the motion's merits given that neither Plaintiff nor Defendant has demonstrated any prejudice caused by the foregoing procedural deficiencies.

If a party fails to serve a timely response to a request for admissions, '[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 under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).' Cal. Code Civ. P. § 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.' Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2033.280(c). See also St. Mary v. Sup. Ct. (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 762, 776. In this case, the evidence shows that on June 2, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with the Discovery Request via U.S. Mail. See Defendant's Motion, Ex. 1. On July 11, 2023, Defendant sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter unilaterally extending Plaintiff's time to respond to the Discovery Request to July 17, 2023. Plaintiff failed to serve timely responses to the Discovery Request. However, on November 21, 2023 – over three months after Defendant filed and served the present motion – Plaintiff filed responses to the Discovery Request dated November 19, 2023. See ROA No. 110. Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff's responses, the court finds that the responses are substantially Code-compliant. Consequently, the court must deny the motion.

'It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.' Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2033.280(c). See also Stover v. Bruntz (2017) 12 Cal. App. 5th 19, 31-32. In other words, the court Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3003595 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  WILFRED VS. VIJAYRAGHAVAN [IMAGED]  37-2020-00038603-CU-DF-NC lacks discretion to deny Defendant's request for monetary sanctions in connection with the Discovery Request. Accordingly, the court awards Defendant $60.00 in sanctions, which amount constitutes the filing fee for the present motion. Defendant's request for an additional $2,000.00 'for egregious and insulting conduct' is denied as the request is not supported by any evidence.

In light of the foregoing, the court: (1) denies the motion to compel, and (2) awards Defendant $60.00 in sanctions against Plaintiff, due and payable to Defendant within twenty-one (21) days of this hearing.

This is the tentative ruling for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, December 1, 2023. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of December 1, 2023. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3003595