Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV46188, Date: 2022-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46188    Hearing Date: August 1, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On December 17, 2021, Plaintiff Loretta Anderson, through her successor in interest, Lori Brackett, filed this action against Defendants CVVG Management, LLC and Conrado Garcia, alleging elder abuse and negligent hiring. The allegations stem from injuries Plaintiff sustained while a resident at Defendants’ care facility, Jasmin Terrace, located in Bakersfield. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she developed pressure ulcers due to Defendants’ inadequate care.

            On May 9, 2022, this Court partly granted Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses. Defendant was ordered to produce further responses within 30 days. Defendant produced supplemental responses on June 7, 2022. On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for sanctions based on Defendant’s inadequate supplemental responses to Requests for Admission. Plaintiff seeks an order deeming the requests admitted, along with monetary sanctions.

LEGAL STANDARD

            “If a party . . . fails to obey an order compelling further response to requests for admission, the court may order that the matters involved in the requests be deemed admitted. In lieu of, or in addition to, this order, the court may impose a monetary sanction . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (e).)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant’s supplemental responses to the RFAs simply stated, “Admit in part and deny in part.” (Garcia Decl., Ex. 2-4.) While Defendant is entitled to admit part of an RFA and deny the rest, Defendant’s failure to specify which part is admitted and which part is denied makes the responses incomplete and evasive. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.210(b) [“Each response shall answer the substance of the requested admission . . .]; 2033.220(a) [“Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits”].)

            Defendant provides no substantial justification for its failure to produce code-compliant responses even after a court order. As such, sanctions are warranted. The reasonable amount is $1,335, representing 3 hours at a rate of $425, plus a $60 filing fee.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is GRANTED. The subject RFAs are deemed admitted. The Court awards monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $1,335, to be paid within 30 days.