Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV31993, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV31993    Hearing Date: December 5, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: December 5, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

1. Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted Against Plaintiff Helyn Claire Lewis;

2. Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted Against Plaintiff Melinda Molenda; and

3. Motion to Compel Compliance Upon Plaintiff Sarah Cuni’s Failure to Produce Documents in Response to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two

(1)-(3) Moving Party: Defendant Redwood Urban LLC

Responding Party: None

T/R:    

1. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DEEM RFAS ADMITTED AGAINST PLAINTIFF LEWIS IS GRANTED.
   
   DEFENDANT’S RFAS ARE CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED AGAINST PLAINTIFF LEWIS.
   
   DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED;
   
   

2. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DEEM RFAS ADMITTED AGAINST PLAINTIFF MOLENDA IS GRANTED.
   
   DEFENDANT’S RFAS ARE CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED AGAINST PLAINTIFF MOLENDA.
   
   DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED; and
   
   

3. MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE UPON PLAINTIFF SARAH CUNI’S FAILURE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO IS GRANTED.
   
   PLAINTIFF CUNI TO PRODUCE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.
   
   DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers. No oppositions have been received.

BACKGROUND

This is the lead case in a consolidated landlord-tenant action, comprised of 24 individual actions/plaintiffs.

At issue before the Court are the following three motions brought by Defendant Redwood Urban LLC: (1) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted Against Plaintiff Helyn Claire Lewis; (2) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted Against Plaintiff Melinda Molenda; and (3) Motion to Compel Compliance Upon Plaintiff Sarah Cuni’s Failure to Produce Documents in Response to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two. Defendant Redwood seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,200 against each of these plaintiffs and their respective attorneys of record.

ANALYSIS

1. Deem Requests for Admission

If a party fails to provide a timely response to a request for admission, the party waives any objection to the requests.  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(a).)  Moreover, “[t]he 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….”  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(b).) 

Defendant Redwood separately moves to deem RFAs admitted against Plaintiffs Helyn Claire Lewis and Melinda Molenda. Defendant served RFAs on each of these plaintiffs on August 10, 2022. Responses initially were due on September 12, 2022. Defendant Redwood’s counsel unilaterally extended the deadline to serve objections to October 7, 2022 without objection. As of the filing of this motion, Defendant has not received responses from either plaintiff. Neither Plaintiff Lewis nor Plaintiff Molenda oppose the motion to show responses have been served. Sanctions are mandatory. (C.C.P. § 2033.280(c).) The amount sought in sanctions is reasonable. 

Defendant Redwood’s motions to deem RFA admitted against Plainitffs Lewis and Molenda are GRANTED. Defendant’s requests for sanctions as to each plaintiff and their attorney of records are GRANTED.

1. Compel Compliance

Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.320(a) provides “[i]f a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.¿.¿. thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party's statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.”¿

Defendant Redwood also moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Sarah Cuni (“Cuni”) to produce documents in accordance with her statement of compliance with regard to RPD, Set Two, Nos. 88, 89, 91-94, and 96. Following Plaintiff Cuni’s November 12, 2021 deposition, where she testified regarding newly-claimed injuries and treatment, Defendant Redwood served Plaintiff Cuni RFP, Set Two, on November 24, 2021. Plaintiff Cuni served unverified responses to these requests, along with statement of compliance, stating Plaintiff Cuni would comply with the requests without specifying a date. On March 3, 2022 and June 8, 2022, Defendant Redwood sent meet and confer letters to Plaintiff Cuni requesting verified responses and a production of documents. Plaintiff Cuni replied, through counsel, stating that she would comply.  To date, Defendant Redwood asserts that Plaintiff Cuni has yet to produce any responsive documents that are at issue in this motion.

The motion to compel compliance is granted. But the Court declines to award sanctions; this issue could have likely been resolved informally through an adequate meet and confer.  Sending letters that were not responded to does not sufficiently suggest the parties met and conferred on the matters at issue here.

Defendant Redwood’s motion to compel compliance is GRANTED. Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.