Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC01622, Date: 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC01622    Hearing Date: October 11, 2022    Dept: 26

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2033.280)

SERVICE OF MOTION:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) OK

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for breach of contract.

RELIEF REQUESTED: Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, served on Defendant Epoxy Zone, Inc., d/b/a Top Epoxy on June 15, 2022, admitted. Award Plaintiffs sanctions of $1,000.00.

OPPOSITION: The responses were timely served following an extension of the deadline to respond.

REPLY:  Defendant curiously chose to mail the purported responses despite having used email for every other communication with Plaintiff. Nor did Defendant seek to meet and confer after receipt of this Motion, and instead waited three weeks to file an opposition. Plaintiffs dispute that the responses were ever served.

TENTATIVE RULING:  

Plaintiffs Shari Edwards and Nathan Johnson’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted and Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On June 15, 2022, Plaintiffs Shari Edwards and Nathan Johnson (“Plaintiffs”) served Requests for Admissions, Set One, on Defendant Epoxy Zone, Inc., d/b/a Top Epoxy (“Defendant”). (Motion, Cole Decl., Exh. A.) Following a meet and confer, the deadline to respond was extended to August 9, 2022. (Id. at Exhs. D-E.) The parties dispute whether responses were timely served on August 9, 2022. Defendant submits evidence that the responses were mailed on August 9, 2022 due to defense counsel’s office email being down at the time. (Opp., Enav Decl., Exhs. A-B.) Plaintiffs, however, contend that the responses were never received, and likely never served. (Reply, Cole Decl., ¶7.)

Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted (“the Motion”) on September 6, 2022. Defendant filed an opposition on September 28, 2022 and Plaintiffs replied on October 3, 2022.

There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort before a motion to deem requests for admission can be filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) Further, the motion can be brought any time after the responding party fails to provide the responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) This Motion comes down to a matter of credibility between counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant. Certainly, both sides could have done more to resolve this discovery dispute before running to the Court. In particular, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ counsel failure to follow up with defense counsel after being informed that the responses were served weighs in favor of denial.  

Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant served verified responses to the Requests for Admission, Set One, on August 9, 2022. However, Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied. Defendant could also have avoided the fees it incurred by seeking to informally resolve this Motion.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs Shari Edwards and Nathan Johnson’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted and Request for Sanctions is DENIED. BOTH PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.