Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV13724, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13724    Hearing Date: April 5, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO DEEM RFAS ADMITTED

On January 6, 2023, Defendant Morse Tec LLC served requests for admissions on Plaintiff Louis Pink Evans, Jr.  The responses were due by February 8, 2023.  Plaintiff did not serve responses.  On March 9, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to deem the RFAs admitted and for monetary sanctions.

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).)  The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff’s counsel states they mis-calendared the due date for the RFA responses, and they served responses after receiving Defendant’s motion.  Defendant states the RFA responses are not in substantial compliance because there is no response to form interrogatory No 17.1 and the responses are not complete and straightforward.  The process for making a motion to compel further responses is: (1) the parties are to meet and confer on the phone to resolve the dispute; (2) if they cannot resolve the dispute, they are to schedule an informal discovery conference; and (3) if the IDC does not resolve the discovery dispute, Defendant may file a motion to compel further responses to the RFAs.

The motion to deem the RFAs admitted is DENIED as Plaintiff has now served responses.

Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Therefore the motion for sanctions is GRANTED.  Defense counsel states she will have spent 4 hours on the motion and hearing at a rate of $375 per hour.  (Akopyan Decl., ¶ 7; Supp. Akopyan Decl., ¶ 6.)  The court determines that a total of 3 hours is reasonable for the preparation of the very simple two-page motion, one-page declaration, and three-page reply and for attendance at a short hearing.  The court awards $1,125 in sanctions against Plaintiff Louis Pink Evans, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this order.

The moving party is to give notice.