Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 22PSCV00196, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22PSCV00196, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00196 Hearing Date: May 2, 2024 Dept: 6

CASE NAME: Langer Juice Company, Inc. v. Silly Brands, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Langer Juice Company, Inc., et al.’s Motion to Have Requests for Admissions Propounded to Defendant Keith Davis Deemed Admitted, Pursuant to CCP Section 2033.420

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court DENIES Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Langer Juice Company, Inc., et al.’s motion to deem requests for admissions admitted.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Langer Juice Company, Inc., et al.’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $810.00. Defendant Keith Davis must pay said monetary sanctions to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days of the Court’s order.

Moving Parties are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract case. On March 2, 2022, plaintiff Langer Juice Company, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Silly Brands, Inc. (Silly) and Keith Davis (Davis), alleging causes of action for breach of contract and common counts.

On May 4, 2022, Silly filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff, Bruce Langer, and David Langer, alleging causes of action for breach of contract (Co-Packing Agreement), breach of implied duty to perform with reasonable care, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, breach of contract (Operating Agreement), and breach of fiduciary duty.

On June 10, 2022, Bruce Langer and David Langer (Langer Cross-Defendants) filed a cross-complaint against Silly and Davis, alleging causes of action for breach of Silly Brands Inc. operating agreement (against Davis only) and breach of fiduciary duty.

On March 21, 2024, Plaintiff and Langer Cross-Defendants (Moving Parties) moved to have requests for admissions deemed admitted against Davis. On April 18, 2024, Davis opposed the motion. On April 25, 2024, Moving Parties replied.

LEGAL STANDARD

When a party fails to serve a timely response to a request for admission, the party propounding the request for admission may move for an order to deem the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., §¿2033.280, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “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… on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Id., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

Although meeting and conferring is not required before bringing motions to compel, (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404), this Court does require parties to meet and confer before bringing motions, (Dept. 6 Courtroom Information [“Parties are required to meet and confer prior to filing any motion.”]) Moving Parties do not indicate having attempted to meet and confer with Davis before bringing this motion. (Franck Decl., ¶¶ 3-7.) The Court admonishes the Moving Parties to meet and confer before bringing any motions going forward.

Analysis

Moving Parties indicate having served a set of Requests for Admissions on Davis on November 16, 2023. (Franck Decl., ¶ 2.) Moving Parties indicated at the time of filing the motion that they had not received responses from Davis. (Id., 7.)

In opposition, Davis indicates that responses were served on April 17, 2024. (Reynolds Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 1.) Davis contends his responses substantially comply with the law, and that Moving Parties’ conduct reduces or waives the right to monetary sanctions since Plaintiff declined to grant Davis an extension.

In reply, Moving Parties contend that Davis’ responses are improper, contending that they contain improper objections, statements of inability to respond, and false statements that the requests seek a legal conclusion.

The Court finds that Davis failed to timely respond to the underlying discovery requests. Davis does not dispute his responses as being untimely. (Reynolds Decl., ¶ 6.) Nevertheless, Davis did provide responses before the hearing on this motion. (Id., ¶ 6, Ex. 1.) Accordingly, the issue is whether his responses are in substantial compliance. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, sudb. (c); see also (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404 [trial court retains discretion to grant discovery motion if the responses are not in substantial compliance].)

Moving Parties contend that many of Davis’ responses contain improper objections, namely Request Numbers 5, 6, 12-21, and 23-37, which they contend the requests “call for a legal conclusion.” Davis waived his right to object when he failed to serve timely responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) In fact, Davis acknowledges the waiver in his opposition. (Opp., 1:22-24.) However, the Court does not view the responses as containing objections, but rather stating the reasons why Davis lacks information or knowledge to enable him to admit the matter after making a reasonable inquiry. The Court finds Davis substantially complied with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.

The Court does not see any other improper objections. (See Reply, 1:13-18.) To the extent Moving Parties complain of qualified or conditional responses, that is permissible. Responding parties are only required to admit to the extent something is true, deny the extent to which something is not true, and indicate when they lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (b).)

Regarding the other responses, the Court finds Davis’ responses substantially comply. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220; Id., 2033.280, subd. (c).) Statements of inability to respond are permissible, provided the responding party indicates having made a reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable the responding party to admit the matter. (Id., § 2033.220, subd. (c).) Davis appears to have done just that. (See, e.g., Opp., Ex. 1, Request No. 1.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the motion to deem requests for admissions admitted.

The Court DENIES Moving Parties’ requests for issue and evidentiary sanctions, as they did not provide a separate statement required under Rule 3.1345 of the California Rules of Court, subdivision (a)(7). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(7).) The Court further declines to impose issue or evidentiary sanctions without first imposing lesser sanctions.

As for monetary sanctions, the Court GRANTS the request in the reduced amount of $810.00, comprised of 2.0 hours preparing the motion, reviewing the opposition, and preparing the reply, plus 0.5 hours for appearing at the hearing on this motion, for a total of 2.5 hours, multiplied by the hourly rate of $300.00, for a total of $750.00, plus $60.00 for the motion filing fee.

CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Langer Juice Company, Inc., et al.’s motion to deem requests for admissions admitted.

Moving Parties are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.