Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCV23782, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23782    Hearing Date: September 1, 2022    Dept: 61

Defendants Enk Apparel, Inc. and Jung Y. Kim’s Motion for Reconsideration of August 1, 2022 Order Denying Motion to Deem Matters Admitted is DENIED. No sanctions are awarded.

I.      MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 is the exclusive means for seeking reconsideration of an order or renewing a motion.  (Kerns v. CSE Ins. Group (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 368, 384.)  The application to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order must be made within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order to the same judge or court that made the order.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) A motion for reconsideration may only be brought if the party moving for reconsideration can offer “new or different facts, circumstances, or law” which it could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the time of the prior motion.  (Id.) There is a strict requirement of diligence - i.e., the moving party must present a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence or different facts earlier.  (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.) “The burden under section 1008 is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the trial.” (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212–13.)

Defendants Enk Apparel, Inc. and Jung Y. Kim move to reconsider this court’s order of August 1, 2022, which denied their motion to deem admitted on the grounds that the motion had been rendered moot by Plaintiff’s provision of responses to the requests at issue. Defendants argue that this motion was actually not rendered moot, because despite the provision of responses to admissions, Plaintiff served no responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. (Motion at p. 4.)

Defendants’ argument is meritless. The motion to deem admitted was rendered moot by the provision of responses to the requests at issue. The failure to serve responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 had no bearing on the motion, as motions to deem admitted relate only to the failure to respond to requests for admission, not interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (b).) Defendants identify no legal authority for the proposition that the failure to respond to an interrogatory warrants an order deeming matters contained in other discovery to be admitted.

The motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff in opposition argues that the motion is frivolous and worthy of sanctions — in the amount of $6,000.00, representing 12 hours of attorney work at $500 per hour — under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1008, subd. (e), and 128.7. (Opposition at p. 5.) No sanctions are awarded.