Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV01063, Date: 2024-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01063    Hearing Date: September 20, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptB@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8422.

On August 12, 2024, Defendant CBO Foods, LLC (“Defendant”) filed a motion for order deeming the Amended Requests for Admissions (“RFA”), set one, admitted.  Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorney in the amount of $1,592.50. 

On July 27, 2023, Defendant served various discovery requests, including the RFA on Plaintiff.  (Nurinda Decl., ¶3, Ex. A.)  On September 28, 2023, Plaintiff served objections/responses and verifications on November 1, 2023.  (Id., ¶4, Ex. B.)  Defendant states that the parties met and conferred via letter and email.  (Id., ¶4, Exs. C-D.)  According to Plaintiff’s counsel’s email dated December 6, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel stated they were amenable to extending Defendant’s motion date to January 19, 2024 (originally due by December 19, 2023 for a motion to compel further, 45 days from November 1, 2023) so that the parties could meet and confer properly, and stating that Plaintiff could not respond to RFA Nos. 1-14 as currently drafted.  (Id., Ex. D.)  On December 8, 2024, defense counsel states that she met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel telephonically and Plaintiff’s counsel insisted that RFA Nos. 1-14 needed to be amended and re-served.  (Id., ¶5.)  On December 21, 2023, Defendant served on Plaintiff amended RFA requests, such that responses were due by January 22, 2024.  (Id., ¶¶7-8, Ex. E.)  As of the filing of the motions, Defendant states that it has not received responses to the amended RFA from Plaintiff.  (Id., ¶9.) 

On September 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief, stating that he provided responses on September 8, 2023 and verifications on November 1, 2023 to the original RFA requests.  Plaintiff argues that Defendant should have filed a motion to compel further responses following the November 1, 2023 verifications to the original RFA requests, or propounded RFA set two regarding the “amended” RFAs.

On September 13, 2024, Defendant filed a reply brief, arguing that the parties had an understanding that amended RFA Nos. 1-14 would be re-propounded.  Defendant argues that there is no authority holding that amended requests should not be treated as new requests.  

While the parties had some written correspondence, it appears that a misunderstanding arose during subsequent telephonic/oral meet and confer efforts.  Defense counsel states that Plaintiff’s counsel represented that Plaintiff would not respond to RFA Nos. 1-14 (regarding authentication of documents) unless amended and re-served.  (Nurinda Decl., ¶5.)  Plaintiff’s counsel states that he did not agree to re-respond to updated RFA Nos. 1-14 since Plaintiff already responded to the initial RFA Nos. 1-14 (Chavez Decl., ¶5); rather, Plaintiff argues he agreed to respond to the RFAs if they were propounded in a second set of RFAs (such as RFA set two, Nos. 30-43).  Plaintiff argues that the parties only discussed RFA Nos. 1-14 in their meet and confer, but Defendant attempted to re-propound amended RFA (set one) Nos. 1-29 in their entirety. 

In light of the parties’ misunderstanding, the Court will order the parties to meet and confer regarding this motion.  It is unclear why the parties did not meet and confer earlier as Plaintiff seems to acknowledge receiving the amended RFA requests in January 2024 (but did not respond) and Defendant was aware that responses were not provided on the amended RFAs yet waited until August 2024 to file this motion (or let the time expire to file a motion to compel further responses to the original RFA responses).  Regardless of the confusion or the delays, it appears that Plaintiff was and has been willing to provide updated responses if the RFAs were updated/amended.  If Plaintiff is willing to respond to the discovery, Defendant should consider serving the “amended” RFA (set one) Nos. 1-14 as RFA (set two) with new numbering, and consider taking this motion off-calendar. 

Defendant’s motion for an order deeming the Amended RFAs admitted is continued to October 25, 2024.  Prior to the continued hearing date, the parties are ordered to file a status update on the meet and confer efforts by the end of the business day of October 18, 2024.  This status update may be jointly or separately filed by the parties.   

Defendant shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: September 20, 2024                                    ___________________________

                                                                              F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge

                                                                              Los Angeles Superior Court