Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV33413, Date: 2023-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33413    Hearing Date: December 14, 2023    Dept: 68

May Ali, PA-C vs. Zein Obagi, M.D., et al., 22STCV33413

Motions to Deem Requests for Admissions, Sets Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six, Admitted

Moving Party: Plaintiff May Ali, PA-C

An Observation

For what purpose is Defendant requesting that the Court take judicial notice of 3 rulings by other Superior Court Judges?  Is it for res judicata, or another proper purpose?  No, not in this case.  It is to ask the Court to follow the interpretation of law noted by another Superior Court Judge.

Rule of Court 8.1115 essentially provides that only published California Supreme Court or Cout of Appeal decisions may be cited.  Other cases “must not be cited or relied on by the court or a party in any other action.”  How does this rule apply to (unpublished) Superior Court rulings by other judges?  Perhaps the failure of the Rule to address this question leads counsel to believe that it is proper to argue to the Court that other Superior Court judges have ruled a particular way in cases involving the same legal issue.  This bench officer believes that it is not proper to “cite” the conclusions of other Superior Court judges as a basis for ruling a particular way.  That is essentially asking this Court to “follow” the uncitable determinations.  This Court does not make its determination by relying upon the rulings of other Superior Court judges that are not citable authority.  Nor does it think it proper to ask the Court to take judicial notice of those decisions.  The Request for Judicial Notice id DENIED.

Motions

            Plaintiff May Ali (Plaintiff) has filed five motions to deem requests for admissions admitted for RFA Sets Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six. Plaintiff requests sanctions for each of the motions. Plaintiff served these sets by mail on Defendant ZO Skin Health, Inc. (Defendant) on May 22 and June 5, 2023. Defendant served its responses, with some objections, to Plaintiff’s RFAs on June 26 and July 7, 2023, respectively. Plaintiff took issue with Defendant’s objections, and the parties spent several months meeting and conferring regarding the objections.

            The parties agreed via email to October 9, 2023, as the cut-off date for Plaintiff to file any motions to compel further responses for outstanding discovery disputes, including Defendant’s responses to the RFA sets. (Opposition at p. 1; Dietrich Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. B, p. 1.) During the meet and confer process, Defendant agreed to provide supplemental responses to some of the RFAs. On November 2, 2023, Defendant sent an email to Plaintiff indicating that it intended to honor its prior commitment to serve supplemental responses. (Opposition at p. 4.) Defendant served its supplemental responses on November 28, 2023. (Opposition at p. 4.)

            In the meantime, Plaintiff filed these motions to deem requests for admissions admitted with requests for sanctions on November 13, 2023. Plaintiff’s basis for filing these motions is unclear, as typically motions to deem requests for admissions admitted are filed when a party fails to respond to requests for admission or fails to respond to the requests in a timely manner.

Plaintiff argues in her replies that there was something wrong with the verifications for Defendant’s supplemental responses. Plaintiff suggests that the denial of an admission relating to the corporate status of a particular employee causes the verification given by that employee to be an invalid verification.  While the “denial” of the request to admit may give rise to an award of attorneys fees if Plaintiff prove such facts, the Court is not aware of authority that suggests that a verification proper on its face should be deemed invalid because of the denial given in this case.  Perhaps there is a valid explanation.  Also, this was raised in the reply, and thus Defendant has not been afforded an opportunity to explain this situation.

            First, Plaintiff’s motions are improper. CCP § 2033.280 applies to parties that fail to serve a timely response to RFAs. There is no indication that Defendant’s responses were untimely. If a requesting party finds the responses provided by the responding party to be deficient, then the requesting party may move to compel further answers to the requests for admissions. (CCP § 2033.290.) This applies if an objection to a request is without merit or too general (CCP § 2033.290(a)(2)), which appears to be the main basis for Plaintiff’s motions. However, Plaintiff did not file motions to compel further responses; Plaintiff filed motions to deem requests for admissions admitted. That is not the proper type of motion in these circumstances.

Even if Plaintiff had filed these motions as motions to compel further responses, Plaintiff missed the deadline for filing such motions. Motions to compel further responses to requests for admissions must be filed within 45 days of service of the verified response, or any specific later date which the parties agreed to in writing, otherwise the requesting party waives any right to compel further response. (CCP § 2033.290(c).) Based on the 45 day deadline, the latest motions to compel further responses could have been filed would have been in August. The parties did agree to an extension to October 9, but Plaintiff did not file these motions until November 13.

The Court denies Plaintiff’s motions based on these procedural defects.

The Court reminds the parties that compliance with discovery obligations in good faith is essential to the proper preparation and resolution of cases.  The Court expects the parties to work in good faith so that proper discovery is properly responded to without the need for court intervention.  The Court shall properly exercise its role in granting discovery sanctions as appropriate under the law.

Order

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motions to Deem Requests for Admissions, Sets Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six, Admitted and requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Sanctions are denied to both parties on these motions.