Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 20STCV27637, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV27637    Hearing Date: January 31, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to have her RFAs deemed admitted is DENIED. The Court declines to award sanctions at this time.

            On 7/22/2020, Plaintiff Yi He (Plaintiff) filed suit against Bank of America, National Association and Thomas Flores, alleging: 1) sex/gender harassment; (2) sex/gender discrimination; (3) race/color discrimination; (4) unlawful retaliation (FEHA); (5) failure to prevent; and (6) wrongful termination.

            On 11/28/2023, Plaintiff moves to have her Requests for Admission (RFAs) deemed admitted against Defendant Bank of America (Defendant or BOA.)

Discussion

            On 6/19/2023, Plaintiff propounded RFAs on Defendant Bank of America .

On 7/20/2023 Counsel for Defendant requested a two week extension to 8/4/2023, which was granted. (Yun Decl. ¶¶ 7-8, Ex. 4.) On 8/3/2023 Counsel for Defendant requested a further two week extension to 8/18/2023 while they continued their search for documents. Again, Plaintiff granted the extension. (Yun Decl. ¶¶ 9-10, Ex. 5.) After Counsel for Plaintiff provided further information related to the RFP3, Counsel for Defendant requested a week extension on 8/17/2023 which moved Defendant’s response date to 8/25/2023. (Yun Decl. ¶¶ 11-12, Ex. 6.) Plaintiff further granted two more extensions of one week on 8/25/2023 and 8/31/2023 making Defendant’s response date 9/8/2023. (Yun Decl. ¶¶ 13-14, Ex. 7.)

On 9/8/2023, Counsel for Defendant served objection only responses for Plaintiff’s RFP3 in order to preserve their objections. However, Defendant did not furnish a response nor an objection to Plaintiff’s RFA1 or FIG2 (FROG). (Yun Decl. ¶¶ 15-16, Ex. 8.)

In opposition, Defendant admits that it did not timely serve responses to the subject RFAs. However, Defendant indicates that responses have since been provided, and its failure to initially provide timely response was due to counsel’s mistake following a “stressful and exhausting day” in which counsel’s mother underwent major surgery and counsel was in the hospital all day. (Opp., 2: 12-14.)

Given that substantially code-compliant responses have been provided, the substance of Plaintiff’s motion is moot, and the motion is denied. (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “If the party manages to serve its responses before the hearing, the court has no discretion but to deny the motion … Everything, in short, depends on submitting responses prior to the hearing.” (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes Estates (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 393, 395-396 (disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 973.)

The Court also finds sanctions are not warranted under the circumstances. CCP section 2033.280, subdivision (c), provides in pertinent part: “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with [Code of Civil Procedure] Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”

However, the Civil Discovery Act, also provides in pertinent part:

To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method ..., the court, after notice ... and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process: [¶] (a) ... 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.

(CCP §2023.030, subd. (a), emphasis added.)

Here, the Court is persuaded that Defendant’s counsel’s failure to timely respond was an oversight based on the circumstances of the day (i.e., having spent a long day at the hospital with her mother). This is evidenced by the fact that Defendant’s counsel thereafter communicated with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding other discovery issues without this issue arising, and Plaintiff did not alert Defendant to the oversight. As such, Defendant had no opportunity to address the issue prior to the motion being filed.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to have her RFAs deemed admitted is denied. The Court declines to award sanctions at this time.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.