Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV14532, Date: 2024-06-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14532    Hearing Date: June 13, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: June 13, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted, or in the alternative, Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission

Moving Party: Plaintiff Gabriel Fierro

Responding Party: Defendant Transdev Services, Inc.

T/R:      PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS DENIED.

PLAINTIFF 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, opposition, and reply.

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).)  On receipt of a response to requests for admission (“RFAs”) the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an RFA is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2033.290(a)(2).)  

Plaintiff moves to deem RFAs, set one, admitted against Defendant Transdev Services, Inc., or alternatively, to compel further responses to RFAs, set one. Plaintiff served the subject discovery on October 6, 2023. Defendant provided unverified responses on December 6, 2023. Plaintiff asserts the Court should deem the responses admitted or order Defendant to provide further responses without objection.

In opposition, Defendant represents that verifications were served on May 30, 2024. Defendant argues that further response should not be ordered because Plaintiff has failed to address the merits of Defendant’s objections to the RFAs in neither meet and confer nor this motion.

As Defendant has provided verifications, the Court will not deem RFAs admitted against Defendant. The Court also cannot order further responses because Plaintiff has not addressed the substance of Defendant’s responses. Plaintiff’s separate statement does not provide the RFAs or their responses. Plaintiff merely states that further response is necessary because Defendant failed to provide verifications and because Defendant represented that it would serve further response in meet and confer. The Court cannot determine whether Defendant’s responses are evasive or incomplete based on the evidence and argument presented by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.