Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case 22STCV16659 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

On May 19, 2022, plaintiff Eduardo Antonio Fuentes Medina (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Amazon.com Services LLC (“Amazon”), Rapid Pasadena Services, LLC (“RPS”), and Mark Ronnie Ramos (“Ramos”) asserting causes of action for (1) general negligence, (2) vicarious liability, (3) negligent hiring, training, retention and supervision, (4) negligent entrustment, and (5) joint enterprise. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges Ramos was driving a motor vehicle in the course and scope of his employment with Amazon and RPS when he collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle on September 24, 2020.

On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for an order deeming admitted Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, against RPS. RPS filed an opposition and Plaintiff filed a reply.

On March 2, 2023, this motion was heard and argued. The Court continued the motion to assess whether Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admissions were in substantial compliance. The Court rules as follows.

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.280, subd. (b).) Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.280, subd. (a).)

If the court finds a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or inspection demands, the court “shall impose a monetary 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)¿ In the context of a motion to deem requests for admission admitted, it is mandatory the court impose monetary sanctions on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to the request necessitated the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Sanctions against counsel: The court in Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 81 (Hennings) noted that discovery sanctions against an attorney are governed by a different standard than sanctions against a party:

By the terms of the statute, a trial court under section 2023.030(a) may not impose monetary sanctions against a party's attorney unless the court finds that the attorney “advised” the party to engage in the conduct resulting in sanctions. (§ 2023.030(a); Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 261, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 501.) “Unlike monetary sanctions against a party, which are based on the party's misuse of the discovery process, monetary sanctions against the party's attorney require a finding the ‘attorney advis[ed] that conduct.’ ” (Ibid.) “It is not enough that the attorney's actions were in some way improper.” (Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 200, 226 Cal.Rptr. 247 (Corns).) Because an attorney's advice to a client is “peculiarly within [his or her] knowledge,” the attorney has the burden of showing that he or she did not counsel discovery abuse. (Ibid.) Accordingly, when a party seeking sanctions against an attorney offers sufficient evidence of a misuse of the discovery process, the burden shifts to the attorney to demonstrate that he or she did not recommend that conduct. (Id. at pp. 200–201, 226 Cal.Rptr. 247; Ghanooni, at p. 262, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 501.)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel served the discovery requests on RPS on November 22, 2022. (Simoudis Decl., ¶ 2.) In his motion, Plaintiff asserts RPS served responses with boilerplate objections. (Mot., p. 3.) For this reason, Plaintiff requests an order deeming admitted Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions against RPS.

RPS argues Plaintiff’s motion is improper because (1) RPS served substantially compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission on February 16, 2023, (2) RPS’s failure to timely serve verified responses was related to Plaintiff’s confusing service and RPS’s counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, and/or excusable neglect; and (3) Plaintiff’s motion is unnecessary as RPS’s counsel provided verifications for RPS’s responses before the hearing.

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege. The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230, and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a)(1), (2).) Unless the court determines the responding party to a motion “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,” it must order the RFAs deemed admitted. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Here, it is undisputed that RPS submitted untimely responses. Having done so, RPS waived any objections to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) The issue, then, is whether RPS is entitled to relief from this waiver. RPS is entitled to such relief.

RPS submits a copy of its discovery responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One. (Serpik Decl., Ex. 3.) RPS also submits verifications for its discovery responses, which were provided to Plaintiff before the March 2, 2023 hearing for this motion. (Stecker Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 3.) Counsel for RPS represents that his office inadvertently failed to calendar the deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery because it was confused by service of Plaintiff’s discovery requests as a single PDF. (Serpik Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s Request for Admission consists of seventeen requests. A review of RPS’s responses reveal a mixture of substantive responses and objections. Specifically, RPS provided fifteen substantive responses and seventeen objections to the at-issue discovery, which comply with Code of Civil Procedure, sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. Accordingly, the Court finds that RPS served verified, substantially compliant responses prior to the hearing of this motion. Plaintiff is not entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted against RPS.

Plaintiff requests imposition of monetary sanctions against RPS and its counsel of record for preparing and filing the instant motion and reply to RPS’s opposition in the amount of $1,237.00. In the context of a motion to deem requests for admission admitted, the court must impose monetary sanctions on the party or attorney, or both, for failure to serve a timely response to the request necessitated the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).) Here, it is undisputed that RPS did not serve timely responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission. Plaintiff substantiates its request for monetary sanctions. (See Reply, ¶ Simoudis Decl., 17.) Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request and imposes sanctions against RPS in the amount of $1,237.00.[1]

In opposition, RPS requests imposition of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,750. Although RPS provided Plaintiff with verifications prior to the March 2, 2023 hearing, it was not sufficiently clear whether RPS had provided substantially compliant responses. Accordingly, the Court declines to impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is granted. Defendant Rapid Pasadena Services, LLC is ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through Plaintiff's counsel, in the amount of $1,237 within twenty (20) days of this order.

Defendant Rapid Pasadena Services, LLC’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Hon. Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] At the March 2, 2023 hearing, RPS’s counsel sufficiently explained the basis for the late response. Pursuant to Hennings, supra, the Court finds RPS’s counsel has submitted evidence to show that RPS’s counsel did not advise RPS’s conduct, which necessitated the filing of this motion. Accordingly, the Court does not impose monetary sanctions against counsel for RPS.