Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV16348, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16348    Hearing Date: December 5, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On May 17, 2022, Plaintiff Swati Vutukuri (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Hollywood Park Land Company, LLC, Stadco LA, LLC, and Does 1-30 for general negligence and premises liability. 

On July 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against the same defendants. 

On May 30, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Apex Security Group, Inc. (“Apex”) as Doe 1 and GMR Event Services, LLC as Doe 2. 

On August 24, 2023, the Court dismissed GMR Event Services LLC without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On September 7, 2023, Apex filed an answer. 

On October 13, 2023, Defendants Hollywood Park Management Company, LLC (erroneously sued as Hollywood Park Land Company, LLC) and Stadco LA, LLC filed an answer. 

On October 7, 2024, Apex filed a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Plaintiff.  The motion was set for hearing on December 5, 2024.  On November 26, 2024, Apex filed a notice of non-opposition.  On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition and request for sanctions.  On December 2, 2024, Apex filed a combined objection to Plaintiff’s late opposition and reply. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Apex asks the Court (1) to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Plaintiff, (2) to impose sanctions on Plaintiff, and (3) to strike Plaintiff’s late opposition. 

Plaintiff asks the Court (1) to deny Apex’s motion and (2) to impose sanctions on Apex. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 provides: 

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: 

“(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: 

“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. 

“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. 

“(b) The requesting 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, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). 

“(c) The court shall make this order, 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. It 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.)  

DISCUSSION 

A.   Background and arguments 

On July 11, 2024, Apex served requests for admission, set one, on Plaintiff. (Brison dec., exh. A.)  On August 19, 2024, Apex re-sent the requests for admission to Plaintiff.  (Brison dec., exh. C.)  On August 30, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel’s office emailed Apex’s counsel stating, “Responses will be served today.”  (Brisnon dec., exh. E.)  However, Plaintiff did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Apex filed this motion on October 7, 2024. 

In Plaintiff’s late opposition, Plaintiff argues that her counsel never received Apex’s requests for admission because “plaintiff’s counsel’s email network was compromised due to malware attacks on July 3, 2024, which disabled the law firm’s email by rerouting more than half of all incoming and outgoing firm emails (including internal staff emails) to an unknown RSS Folder.”  (Opposition p. 2.)  

Yet Plaintiff does not deny that Apex’s counsel re-sent the requests for admission to Plaintiff’s counsel on August 19, 2024.  (See Brinson dec., exh. C.)  Plaintiff does not explain why she did not serve timely responses to these requests for admission. 

Plaintiff argues that on November 26, 2024, she served code-compliant responses to Apex’s requests for admission.  Apex argues the responses contain objections and the Court should compel Plaintiff to provide substantive responses to the requests for admission. 

B.   Analysis and rulings 

The Court exercises its discretion to consider Plaintiff’s late opposition. 

The Court denies Apex’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, because Plaintiff “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).)  If Apex believes that any answers are evasive or incomplete or that any objections are without merit or too general, Apex may “move for an order compelling a further response” in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290 and the Court’s Eighth Amended Standing Order. 

The Court grants Apex’s request for monetary sanctions because Plaintiff’s “failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Apex requests monetary sanctions of $1,461.65 based on five hours of attorney time at a rate of $280.00 per hour and one $61.65 filing fee.  Counsel spent 2.5 hours preparing the moving papers and anticipated spending 1.5 hours reviewing Plaintiff’s opposition and preparing a reply brief and one hour attending the hearing. 

The Court awards Apex $811.65 based on three hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour and one filing fee. 

The Court denies Apex’s request to impose an additional sanction of $1,000.00 “to deter Plaintiff and her counsel from additional abuses of the discovery process.” 

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Defendant Apex Security Group, Inc.’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Plaintiff Swati Vutukuri. 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Apex Security Group, Inc.’s request for monetary sanctions and orders Plaintiff Swati Vutukuri and her counsel to pay Defendant Apex Security Group, Inc. $811.65 by January 6, 2025. 

The Court DENIES Defendant Apex Security Group, Inc.’s request to strike Plaintiff Swati Vutukuri’s opposition. 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff Swati Vutukuri’s request for monetary sanctions. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.