Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 24STCV00335, Date: 2025-01-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV00335 Hearing Date: January 3, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On January 5, 2024, Plaintiffs Mariela Montalvan (“Montalvan”), Reynaldo Agustin Carbajal, and Elias Bernando Carbajal by and through his guardian ad litem Montalvan filed this action against Defendants Allison Okere, Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On January 24, 2024, the Court appointed Montalvan to serve as Plaintiff Elias Bernando Carbajal’s guardian ad litem.
On March 29, 2024, Uber filed an answer.
On November 8, 2024, Uber filed (1) a motion to compel Montalvan’s responses to requests for production, set one, and for sanctions and (2) a motion to deem admitted the truth of matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Montalvan and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on January 3, 2025. On December 19, 2024, Montalvan filed oppositions. On December 26, 2024, Uber filed replies.
Trial is currently scheduled for July 7, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Uber asks the Court (1) to compel Montalvan’s responses to request for production, set one and (2) to deem admitted the truth of matters specified in requests for admission, set one. Uber also asks the Court to impose sanctions on Montalvan.
Montalvan asks the Court to deny the motions.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Inspection demand
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 provides:
“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply:
“(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, 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 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.
“(c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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. If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).
“(d) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), absent exceptional circumstances, the court shall not impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as a result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.
“(2) This subdivision shall not be construed to alter any obligation to preserve discoverable information.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)
B. Requests for admission
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. Uber's motion to compel Montalvan's responses to requests for production
On July 2, 2024, Uber served requests for production, set one. Montalvan did not serve responses by the August 26, 2024 deadline to which the parties had agreed. On August 28, 2024, Montalvan served late objections to the requests for production. As a result, Montalvan waived her objections to the requests for production. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a); cf. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407-408 [addressing interrogatories].)
Montalvan opposes Uber’s motion to compel responses to the requests for production, arguing the motion is untimely and Uber did not meet and confer, request an Informal Discovery Conference, or file a separate statement.
Uber appropriately filed a motion to compel responses to requests for production under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (b), not a motion to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a). Therefore, the 45-day requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (c) does not apply here. In addition, Uber was not required to meet and confer, request an informal discovery conference, or file a separate statement.
The Court grants Uber’s motion and orders Montalvan to serve verified code-compliant responses without objections to Uber’s requests for production and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by February 3, 2025.
Uber requests $2,185.00 in sanctions based on 8.5 hours of attorney time at a rate of $250.00 per hour plus one $60.00 filing fee. Counsel spent one hour to prepare the moving papers and anticipated spending five hours to review the opposition and prepare a reply and 2.5 hours to prepare for and attend the hearing. The Court awards Uber $810.00 in sanctions based on three hours of attorney time and one filing fee.
B. Uber's motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission
On July 2, 2024, Uber served requests for admission, set one, on Montalvan. Montalvan did not serve responses by the August 26, 2024 deadline to which the parties had agreed. On August 28, 2024, Montalvan served late objections to the requests for admission. As a result, Montalvan waived her objections to the requests for admission. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)
Montalvan opposes Uber’s motion to deem admitted the truth of matters specified in the requests for admission, arguing the motion is untimely and Uber did not meet and confer, request an Informal Discovery Conference, or file a separate statement.
Uber appropriately filed a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), not a motion to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (a). Therefore, the 45-day requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (c) does not apply here. Uber was not required to meet and confer, request an informal discovery conference, or file a separate statement.
Neither party has advised the Court that Montalvan has served a proposed response to Uber’s requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) The Court therefore grants Uber’s motion and deems admitted the truth of matters specified in Uber’s requests for admission, set one, served on Montalvan on July 2, 2024.
“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 [a] motion” under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b). (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
Montalvan requests $3,185.00 in sanctions based on 12.5 hours of attorney time at a rate of $250.00 per hour and one $60.00 filing fee. Counsel spent 5.0 hours to prepare the moving papers and anticipated spending 5.0 hours to review the opposition and prepare a reply and 2.5 hours to prepare for and attend the hearing. The Court awards Uber $810.00 in sanctions based on three hours of attorney time and one filing fee.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s motion to compel Plaintiff Mariela Montalvan’s responses to requests for production, set one, and orders Plaintiff Mariela Montalvan to serve verified code-compliant responses without objections to Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s requests for production and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by February 3, 2025.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s motion to deem admitted the truth of matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Plaintiff Mariela Montalvan. The Court deems the matters admitted.
The Court GRANTS in part Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s requests for sanctions and orders Plaintiff Mariela Montalvan and her counsel to pay Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. $1,620.00 ($810.00 on each motion) by February 3, 2025. In all other respects, the Court DENIES Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s requests for 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.