Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2022-01240826, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Yvette Cook's motion to compel responses from Defendant BMW of North America, LLC (“Defendant"), to her first sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests to inspect and copy documents are granted.  Plaintiff's motion to deem admitted requests for admissions is granted if Defendant does not serve a verification to the responses prior to the hearing. 

Defendant filed untimely oppositions on July 13, 2023.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005.)  No reason or showing of good cause was given in the papers. Nevertheless, the court will exercise its discretion to consider the oppositions.  Plaintiff was able to timely file her replies, and does not appear to have been prejudiced by the delay.

Plaintiff properly served the discovery on Defendant. Defendant failed to serve timely responses despite being granted an extension, and even after Plaintiff had given a courtesy reminder that responses were overdue. Defendant eventually served responses on July 12, 2023.  However, these responses are deficient.  They are not verified and include objections that have been waived.  (See Dao Decls. [ROA 60, 64, 70, 74].)

Unless Defendant serves a verification to the request for admissions prior to this hearing, the truth of the matters specified in the request for admissions, will be deemed admitted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c) [the court shall deem the matters admitted “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”]; see also St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 782 [actual compliance not required where the proposed response is facially a good-faith effort to respond to requests for admission in a manner that is substantially code-compliant].) 

Within 20 days of the notice of ruling, Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to the first sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories and requests to inspect and copy documents. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (b) [requests for production].)

To the extent Defendant seeks relief from waiver of objections, Defendant must bring a properly noticed motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.300, subd. (a); 2033.280, subd. (a); see Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023) ¶ 8:1034 [“A noticed motion for relief from waiver is required. (I.e., such relief cannot be granted ex parte, or where the only motion pending is a motion to compel.)”].)

In connection with these motions, Plaintiff is awarded a total of $4,920 against Defendant BMW of North America, LLC. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (c) [requests for production], 2033.280, subd. (c) [requests for admission].) Within 30 days of the notice of ruling, Defendant shall pay the sanctions to Hutchens Law, APC.

Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.