Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV39030, Date: 2023-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39030    Hearing Date: May 8, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Defendant City of Downey (Defendant) moves to deem admitted the matters specified in Requests for Admission, set one (RFA) propounded on Plaintiff Raul Rodriguez (Plaintiff).  Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.  Defendant replies.

ANALYSIS

            Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom requests or admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . .  [t]he 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[.]”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)  Where a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, the propounding 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.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

Here, Defendant served the RFA on Plaintiff on August 10, 2022, by mail.  Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by September 14, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motion, Defendant had not received responses from Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to serve timely responses to the RFA.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the instant motion to compel is moot, as Plaintiff served the responses to the RFA on Defendant on December 15, 2022.  Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff served the responses to the RFA on December 15, 2022, albeit after the motion was filed.  (See Declaration of Jonathan A. Arjonilla, in Reply, ¶ 4.)  Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant’s motion, in part, to be moot.

Although the Court finds Defendant’s motion to be moot, the question of sanctions nevertheless remains before the Court. “[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].”  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407.)  Even if the untimely response “does not contain objections [and] substantially resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses…the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.”  (Id. at pp. 408-409.)  This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to respond to discovery in a timely fashion.”  (Id. at p. 408.)  If “the propounding party [does not] take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,” the trial court may “deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions.”  (Id. at p. 409; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a) [“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed”].)

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  In opposition, Plaintiff argues that monetary sanctions are unwarranted because Defendant granted Plaintiff an extension of time to serve the subject RFA.  Further after Plaintiff served the responses to the RFA, Defendant did not take the instant motion off calendar.  The Court disagrees. 

First, as demonstrated by the proof of service advanced with Plaintiff’s responses to the RFA, Plaintiff served responses on December 15, 2022, past the purported extension time, October 11, 2022.  Second, the Court is compelled to grant the request for monetary sanctions, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s belated responses to the RFA.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c) [“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”], emphasis added.) 

Consequently, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $700, which represents four hours of attorney time to prepare the moving and reply papers, and attend the hearing, at $175 per hour.[1]

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies in part Defendant’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in the RFA as to Plaintiff as moot.   

Further, the Court grants in part Defendant’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in the RFA and orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $700 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.