Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC03763, Date: 2023-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC03763    Hearing Date: January 4, 2023    Dept: 26

State Farm v. Lemons, et al.


MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2033.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Requests for Admissions and Request for Sanction is GRANTED. DEFENDANT MARQUIS LEMONS IS TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE REQUESTS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANT MARQUIS LEMONS IS ALSO ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $750.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On May 14, 2021, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Marquis Lemons (“Defendant”).

On September 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Requests for Admission and Request for Sanctions against Defendant. The Motion initially came for hearing on December 1, 2022 and was continued to allow for further briefing. Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration on December 5, 2022. (Minute Order, 12/01/22.) No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

Notice of the motion to compel further must be given “within 45 days of service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing,” otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).) The parties agreed to extend the filing deadline to September 19, 2022. (Motion, Supp. Espinosa Decl., Exh. 5.) The Motion was timely filed and served on September 16, 2022.

Also, the Motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.310, subd. (b)(2).) Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration demonstrates a significant effort by Plaintiff’s counsel to obtain verifications and further responses from Defendant from March to September 2022. (Motion, Supp. Espinosa Decl., Exhs. 2-5.) The meet and confer requirement, therefore, is satisfied.

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345 requires all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a).) Alternatively, “the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b)(2).) The Motion is accompanied by a separate statement. (Separate Statement, filed 09/14/22.)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for Admission, Nos. 1-9 because Defendant’s responses to the requests consisted entirely of objections. Specifically, Defendant identically objected that the requests are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, violate the attorney-client and work product privileges, and seek premature disclosure of expert witness information. (Motion, Separate Statement, Request Nos. 1-9.)

The objections are improper because, as Plaintiff points out, the particular requests for admission are proper in an action involving a motor vehicle accident given the broad scope of discovery. Indeed, it appears that by throwing numerous objections at each response, Defendant is relying on nuisance objections that fail to provide the specific information required by statute. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (b).) Nor has Defendant filed an opposition to defend the objections asserted, either prior to the original or continued hearing dates.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling further responses to Request for Admissions, Nos. 1-9. Sanctions are appropriate and have been properly noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2023.030.) Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is granted in the amount of $750.00 based on three hours of attorney time billed at $750.00. (Motion, Supp. Espinosa Decl., ¶7.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Requests for Admissions and Request for Sanction is GRANTED. DEFENDANT MARQUIS LEMONS IS TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE REQUESTS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANT MARQUIS LEMONS IS ALSO ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $750.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.