Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV02377, Date: 2024-09-25 Tentative Ruling
Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).
Case Number: 23CHCV02377 Hearing Date: September 25, 2024 Dept: F47
SECOND AMENDED MOTION FOR ORDER WAIVING OBJECTIONS
&
FOR SANCTIONS
Motion filed on 8/5/24.
MOVING PARTY: Defendants Joy Weber and Weber Training Stables
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Alexander Griffiths
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The motion is denied.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of Plaintiff Alexander Griffiths (Plaintiff) claim that he was attacked by a horse boarded by Defendants Weber Training Stables and Joy Weber (collectively, Defendants) who were allegedly aware of the vicious propensities of the horse. On 8/8/23, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants and Doe Defendants (1-20) for: (1) General Negligence (against all defendants), (2) Premises Liability (against Defendants) and (3) Strict Liability for Domestic Animal Attack (against all defendants).
Defendants claim that Requests for Admissions were served on Plaintiff on 6/1/24 and Plaintiff served untimely responses to the Requests for Admission on 7/11/24 which included objections. (See Motion, Ex.A, B). As a result, on 8/1/24, Defendants filed and served their initial motion for waiver of objections and for sanctions which did not include any exhibits. On 8/1/24, Plaintiff filed and served another motion for waiver of objections and for sanctions which included the discovery requests and responses thereto as an exhibit. On 8/2/24, Defendants served and on 8/5/24, Defendants filed the instant second amended notice of motion and motion seeking an order pursuant to CCP 2033.280 that all objections posed by Plaintiff in his response to Request for Admissions be waived, and for sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $3,500.00 pursuant to CCP 2033.280. Defendants have filed and served an opposition and Plaintiff has filed a reply to the opposition.
ANALYSIS
It is not clear which version of the motion Plaintiff is addressing in the opposition. The opposition contends that the motion was served by mail on 7/25/24 and does not include the discovery as an exhibit. (See Opposition, p.2:6-7, p.3:22-23; Gerome Decl. ¶¶13-14). While the first motion filed and served by Defendants did not include exhibits, the subsequently filed motions do include exhibits and none of the proofs of service attached to the motions indicate that any of them were served on 7/25/24 by mail. This ruling addresses the Second Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Order Waiving Objections and for Sanctions served on 8/2/24 and filed on 8/5/24.
There is a genuine dispute regarding when the underlying Requests for Admissions were served. Defendants’ counsel contends that they were served by mail on 6/1/24 making responses due on or before 7/6/24. (Husband Decl.). However, Plaintiff’s counsel contends that the discovery was received in the mail on 6/11/24 without a proof of service; therefore, Plaintiff’s counsel presumed responses were due on or before 7/11/24. (Gerome Decl.). Even accepting Defendants’ claim that the responses were not timely served, the motion fails for several reasons.
First, Defendants fail to give clear notice of the relief requested. See CRC 3.1110(a). In the notice of motion, Defendants indicate that they seek an order pursuant to CCP 2033.280 that all objections posed by Plaintiff in his responses to Requests for Admission be waived, and for sanctions pursuant to CCP 2033.280. (See Second Amended Motion, p.1:24-p.2:1). However, the proposed Order submitted with the motion is titled as an “Order Deeming Admitted Truth of Facts and Genuineness of Documents and Imposing Monetary Sanctions.” (See Second Amended Motion, pdf p.32-33). However, the body of the proposed order merely asks that the objections be waived and that Plaintiff be ordered to pay sanctions. Id.
Second, Defendants base this motion on CCP 2033.280 which provides:
“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.
(2) The party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
(b) The 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 under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).
(c) 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 under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”
Nothing in CCP 2033.280 provides authority for the Court ordering the waiver of objections included in untimely responses. If the statute provided for such relief, it would seem to render the language in CCP 2033.280(c) which provides that the Court shall deem matters admitted, “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” meaningless.
Here, Plaintiff served responses to the subject Requests for Admissions well before Defendants filed and served any of their motions seeking an order waiving Plaintiff’s objections to same. As such, Defendants were required to meet and confer regarding the responses which they deemed to be deficient and if the matter could not be informally resolved, Defendants were required to timely file and serve a motion to compel further responses accompanied by a separate statement. See CCP 2033.290; CRC 3.1345.
Further, contrary to Defendants’ assertion, if Plaintiff’s responses are deemed untimely, Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that relief from waiver of objections is warranted. Plaintiff has served responses in substantial compliance with CCP 2033.210, 2033.220 and 2033.230 and Plaintiff’s counsel has indicated that the failure to serve timely responses was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect in believing that responses were due on 7/11/24 due to the date the discovery requests were received in the mail. See CCP 2033.280(a); (Gerome Decl. ¶23).
CONCLUSION
The motion is denied.
The Court notes that both Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s counsel have failed to electronically bookmark the exhibits attached to the motion, opposition and reply in violation of CRC 3.1110(f)(4). Counsel for the parties are warned that failure to comply with this rule in the future may result in matters being continued so that papers can be resubmitted in compliance, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.
Additionally, with regard to the issue of electronic service of documents in this case, counsel for the parties are advised to review CCP 1010.6(b) and CRC 2.251(c)(3), (4).