TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Adriana Fadlallah’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Requests for Admission for Monetary, Issue & Terminating Sanctions Against Robert McKee and His Attorneys Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar, LLC is DENIED.

Plaintiff Adriana Fadlallah to give notice. 

REASONING

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff Adriana Fadlallah (“Plaintiff”) requests judicial notice of Plaintiff’s notice of the Court’s ruling dated January 16, 2024 and the contents of that order. Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).

Analysis

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to her Requests for Admission, Set No. 1, Nos. 16 to 21 and 50 from Defendant Robert McKee (“Defendant”) on the ground that Defendant provided inadequate responses to these requests.

On receipt of responses to requests for admission, the demanding party may move for further responses if the responding party’s “answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete” or “[a]n objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a)); see also Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189-1190 [motion to compel proper to challenge “boilerplate” responses].)

“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the requests for admissions.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).) This timeliness requirement is mandatory, and in some sense may even be considered a matter of jurisdiction, and the Court therefore “[has] no power to make an order compelling further answers where the propounding party failed to serve this motion within the statutory time.” (Prof’l Career Colls., Magna Inst., Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 490, 493; see also Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681 [same].)   

A motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b)(1).) A meet and confer declaration must “state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a) requires that any motion to compel further responses to discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further.

First, insofar as Defendant contends that supplemental responses were served on February 27, 2025, such that Plaintiff’s motion is rendered moot, and this motion is “wasting both the Court’s and Defendant’s time with a motion that no longer serves any purpose” (Opp’n, p. 3, ll. 16-17), it is notable that the supplemental responses were not served before the motion was filed. Rather, the responses were provided one day before the opposition, which tends to indicate that the motion was not a “waste of time” as Defendant states. Defendant appears to contend that Plaintiff did not sufficiently meet and confer to obtain these responses, but Plaintiff’s motion makes clear that counsel repeatedly communicated about the responses, and Plaintiff only filed this motion after no further responses were received.

Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the supplemental responses provided on February 27, 2025 and finds they sufficiently respond to the requests. Therefore, no further response is warranted as to any request, and Plaintiff Adriana Fadlallah’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Requests for Admission is DENIED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (d), provides that “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, 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.” While the Court notes that supplemental responses were not provided until after this motion was filed, the motion was ultimately unsuccessful given that supplemental responses were provided. For that reason, Plaintiff Adriana Fadlallah’s Request for Sanctions will be further heard at the hearing.