Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 22TRCV00926, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00926    Hearing Date: April 5, 2023    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                         April 5, 2023

Moving Parties:                      Plaintiff Alexis Mikayla Rodriguez

Responding Party:                  Defendant LA County MTA

Motion for an Order Establishing Defendant’s Admissions

            The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

RULING

            The motion is GRANTED IN PART.  Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions to plaintiff in the amount of $860, within 30 days.

BACKGROUND

On October 11, 2022, plaintiff Alexis Mikayla Rodriguez filed a complaint against Los Angeles County MTA for (1) negligence (Gov. Code §815.2), (2) violation of Vehicle Code §§22350 and 17001, and (3) negligence (Gov. Code §820(a)).  Plaintiff alleges that on April 3, 2020, at approximately 8:00 p.m., plaintiff was a lawful passenger in a motor vehicle, which was lawfully proceeding on Hawthorne Blvd. at or near the subject intersection.  Defendant’s bus was proceeding northbound on Hawthorne Blvd. at or near the subject intersection when it collided with the car plaintiff was riding. 

On March 29, 2023, the court granted in part plaintiff’s motions to compel written discovery.  The requests to compel were moot but the court ordered defendant to pay sanctions.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(b), a 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).  “Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions.  Rather, the propounder of the RFA must ‘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 § 2023.010 et seq.”  Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶ 8:1370, citing CCP § 2033.280(b).  The court “shall” grant the motion to deem RFA 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.”  CCP § 2033.280(c).  

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff Alexis Mikayla Rodriguez requests an order establishing the truth of each matter specified in the Requests for Admissions, Set No. One, served on defendant LA County MTA on November 9, 2022.

Plaintiff asserts that on November 21, 2022, defense counsel requested an extension of 30 days, and plaintiff’s counsel gave an extension to January 13, 2023.  On January 10, 2023, defense counsel requested an additional extension of 14 days to respond, which plaintiff’s counsel granted.  On January 26, 2023, plaintiff contends, defendant served unverified responses.  On February 7, 2023, plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to defense counsel requesting that defendant serve verifications to the requests by February 14, 2023.  Plaintiff asserts that defense counsel did not respond and as of the date of the filing of the motions, February 24, 2023, plaintiff’s counsel had not received verifications.

In opposition, defendant asserts that on February 28, 2023, it served verifications.

In reply, plaintiff reiterates her argument that defendant failed to serve verifications with its responses before the motion was filed.

The court finds that plaintiff properly served written discovery and that although defendant served responses, it failed to serve a verification.  Unverified discovery responses “are tantamount to no responses at all.”  Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 636.  Defendant did serve a verification after the motion was filed.  Thus, the motion is MOOT to the extent there is nothing to deem admitted. 

Sanctions

Under CCP § 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” 

It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated a motion to deem them admitted.  CCP § 2033.280(c).

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) states:  “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” 

Plaintiff requests $2,060 in attorney’s fees and costs as sanctions against defendant.  The court finds that $860 ($400/hr. x 2 hrs., $60 filing fee) is a reasonable amount to be awarded in favor of plaintiff against defendant.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of ruling.