Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 19STCV03462, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling
The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.
Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.
Case Number: 19STCV03462 Hearing Date: March 16, 2023 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further
Responses to Defendant Jake Dante’s Request for Admissions [and] Request for
Sanctions
Moving Party: Defendant
Jake Morris Dante
Resp. Party: Plaintiff Benjamin Nichols
Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have 7 days to serve
responses to RFA Nos. 35–50.
Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Monetary sanctions are
awarded in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in the total amount of $1,185.00.
Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.
BACKGROUND:
On February 1, 2019,
Plaintiff Benjamin Nichols filed his Complaint against Defendants Jake Morris
Dante, Cynthia Pett Dante, and Brillstein Entertainment Partners, LLC to allege
the following causes of action related to an automobile accident:
(1) Negligence;
(2) Violation of Vehicle
Code Sections 20001 and 20003;
(3) Violation of Vehicle
Code Section 23152; and
(4) Negligent entrustment
of motor vehicle.
On July 2, 2019, Defendants filed their Answer.
On July 19, 2022, the
Court: (1) denied summary adjudication as to the first and fourth causes of
action; (2) granted summary adjudication in favor of Defendants as to the
second and third causes of action; and (3) granted summary adjudication in
favor of Defendants as to punitive damages on the first, second, and third
causes of action.
On February 17, 2023,
Defendant Jake Morris Dante (“Defendant”) filed his Motion to Compel
Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Defendant Jake Dante’s Request for Admissions
and Request for Sanctions. Defendants concurrently filed: (1) Separate
Statement; and (2) Proposed Order.
On March 3, 2023,
Plaintiff filed his Opposition. The Opposition includes a Request for Sanctions
against Defendants and their Counsel. Plaintiff concurrently filed Declaration
of Seri Kattan-Wright.
On March 9, 2023,
Defendant filed his Reply.
ANALYSIS:
I.
Legal
Standard
“On receipt of a
response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move
for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or
both of the following apply: (1)¿An answer to a particular request is evasive
or incomplete[;] (2)¿An objection to a particular request is without merit
or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a)(1)–(2).)
II.
Discussion
A. Requests for Admission Propounded
Defendant propounded the following requests for admission (RFAs) on
Plaintiff:
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 35:
Admit that the surgery YOU received on June 14, 2022, performed at
Pegasus Surgery Center, did not arise from any injury attributable to the
SUBJECT INCIDENT. (“SUBJECT INCIDENT” and “SUBJECT VEHICLE” shall refer to the
incident and vehicle as described in the operative complaint.) (“PLAINTIFF,”
“YOU” and “YOUR” shall mean Plaintiff, BENJAMIN NICHOLS.)
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 36:
Admit that the first time YOU claimed to any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER that
YOU experienced confusion as a result of the SUBJECT INCIDENT was on July 18,
2019, 226 days after the SUBJECT INCIDENT. [“HEALTH CARE” is defined to include
all medical, therapeutic, dental, psychological or psychiatric care, treatment,
therapy, counseling, consultation, testing or evaluation done by any HEALTH
CARE PROVIDER. “HEALTH CARE PROVIDER” is defined to include physicians,
chiropractors, physical therapists, nurses, medical entities, holistic medicine
providers, psychiatrists, psychotherapists, and the like.]
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 37:
Admit that the first time YOU claimed to any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER that
YOU experienced dizziness as a result of the SUBJECT INCIDENT was on July 18,
2019, 226 days after the SUBJECT INCIDENT.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 38:
Admit that the first time YOU claimed to any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER that
YOU experienced balance problems as a result of the SUBJECT INCIDENT was on
July 18, 2019, 226 days after the SUBJECT INCIDENT.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 39:
Admit that the first time YOU claimed to any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER that
YOU experienced lightheadedness as a result of the SUBJECT INCIDENT was on July
18, 2019, 226 days after the SUBJECT INCIDENT.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 40:
Admit that the first time YOU claimed to any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER that
YOU experienced memory problems as a result of the SUBJECT INCIDENT was on July
18, 2019, 226 days after the SUBJECT INCIDENT.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 41:
Admit that the first time YOU claimed to any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER that
YOU experienced mood swings as a result of the SUBJECT INCIDENT was on July 18,
2019, 226 days after the SUBJECT INCIDENT.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 42:
Admit that the first time YOU claimed to any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER that
YOU experienced multiple neurological issues as a result of the SUBJECT
INCIDENT was on July 18, 2019, 226 days after the SUBJECT INCIDENT.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 43:
Admit that the first time YOU claimed to any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER that
YOU experienced ringing in the ears as a result of the SUBJECT INCIDENT was on
July 18, 2019, 226 days after the SUBJECT INCIDENT.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 44:
Admit that the first time YOU claimed to any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER that
YOU experienced sensitivity to light as a result of the SUBJECT INCIDENT was on
July 18, 2019, 226 days after the SUBJECT INCIDENT.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 45:
Admit that the first time YOU claimed to any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER that
YOU experienced sensitivity to sound as a result of the SUBJECT INCIDENT was on
July 18, 2019, 226 days after the SUBJECT INCIDENT.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 46:
Admit that the first time YOU claimed to any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER that
YOU experienced taking longer to think as a result of the SUBJECT INCIDENT was
on July 18, 2019, 226 days after the SUBJECT INCIDENT.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 47:
Admit that the first time YOU claimed to any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER that
YOU experienced word finding issues as a result of the SUBJECT INCIDENT was on
July 18, 2019, 226 days after the SUBJECT INCIDENT.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 48:
Admit that YOU were administered a Neuropsychological Assessment
Battery Exam by the National Brain Injury Institute on August 30, 2021, AND
failed the Test of Memory Malingering.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 49:
Admit that after YOU failed the Test of Memory Malingering on August
30, 2021, the test was suspended and rescheduled for a later time.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 50:
Admit that YOU retook the Test of Memory Malingering administered on
October 4, 2021, AND passed [capitalization in original].
B. The Motion
The relevant timeline for this Motion is as follows:
(1)
On September
9, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission, Set One, which
included RFA Nos. 1 through 51.
(2)
On
November 1, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with responses to the Requests for
Admission, Set One, which only contained objections to RFA Nos. 36 through 51
on the basis that the discovery exceeded that allowed by Code of Civil
Procedure section 2030.030 and did not include a declaration as described in
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.050.
(3)
On
November 3, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with Request for Admissions, Set
Two, which included what had originally been labelled RFA Nos. 36 through 51.
Requests for Admission, Set Two included a declaration for additional discovery
as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.030.
(4)
On
December 5, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with responses to the Requests for
Admission, Set Two, which again objected to the same RFAs, this time on the
basis of vagueness and that capitalized terms were not defined.
(5)
On
December 8, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with Request for Admissions,
Amended Set Two, which contained definitions for the capitalized terms.
(6)
On
January 12, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with responses to the Requests for
Admission, Amended Set Two, which only included objections. Among these
objections were that the RFAs were already propounded.
(7)
On
February 17, 2023, Defendants filed this Motion.
(Motion, Decl.
Howard, ¶¶ 3–8; Opposition, pp. 2:3–28, 4:1–10.)
Defendant moves the Court to: (1) order Plaintiff to provide further
responses to RFA Nos. 35–50; and (2) award monetary sanctions for Defendant and
against Plaintiff. (Motion, p. 7:2–6.) Defendant argues that good cause
supports this Motion. (Id. at p. 5:3–4.)
Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing: (1) that more than 45 days have
passed since Plaintiff served his responses, waiving Defendant’s right to
compel answers to those questions; (2) that Defendant failed to meet and
confer; and (3) that the requests are impermissibly repetitive, burdensome, and
oppressive. (Opposition, pp. 3:23–25, 4:12–14, 5:1–4.)
Defendant reiterates his arguments in his Reply.
The Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s arguments.
First, considering that the Parties have exchanged emails and responses
back and forth, the Court finds that the meet and confer requirement is met
here. (Motion, Ex. G.)
Second, Plaintiff never substantively answered the RFAs at issue.
Plaintiff only served objections to these RFAs, each time serving different
objections after Defendant attempted to correct the errors Plaintiff
identified. By itself, that is an insufficient basis for the Court to find that
the RFAs are impermissibly repetitive, burdensome, or oppressive, much less restrict
the discovery on that basis. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.030, subd. (a).)
Finally, the Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s timeliness argument.
While Defendant first moved the Court for relief on this issue on February 17,
2023, Defendant repeatedly attempted to resolve this issue without the Court’s
assistance, and at no point did Defendant wait more than 45 days at any point
after receiving Plaintiff’s repeated objections to these RFAs. Even if the
Court were to find that the 45-day period under Code of Civil Procedure section
2033.290, subdivision (c) applied to the original set of RFAs served on
September 9, 2022, the Court would find good cause under the facts here to
allow Defendant to re-file the amended RFAs.
“We
do not read the statutes governing RFAs in a vacuum. The purpose of the RFA
procedure is to expedite trials and to eliminate the need for proof when
matters are not legitimately contested.” (St. Mary v. Super. Ct. (2014)
223 Cal.App.4th 762, 783.)
These RFAs are
not vague, ambiguous, overbroad, or irrelevant. Plaintiff must respond to them.
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion. Plaintiff shall have 7 days to
serve responses to RFA Nos. 35–50.
C. Sanctions
1.
Legal
Standard
The court shall
impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010)
against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a
motion to compel further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the
sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make
the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd.
(d).)
2.
Discussion
Plaintiff has unsuccessfully opposed a motion to compel further
response to RFAs. There is no evidence before the Court to indicate that Plaintiff
acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
imposition of the sanction unjust. Thus, the Court must impose a monetary
sanction on Plaintiff.
Defense Counsel declares: (1) that he charges $225.00 per hour; (2)
that he will have spent 14.1 hours on this Motion, including on the Reply and
attending the Hearing; and (3) that he incurred a $60.00 filing fee. (Motion,
Decl. Howard, ¶¶ 13–14.)
The Court finds that the $60.00 in costs incurred and Counsel’s hourly
rate are reasonable but that the number of hours spent is not reasonable. The
Court awards the entirety of the costs and $1,125.00 in fees ($225.00/hr. x 5
hours).
III.
Conclusion
Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED. Since trial is five weeks away, Plaintiff
shall serve responses to RFA Nos. 35–50 within seven days.
Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Monetary sanctions are
awarded in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in the total amount of $1,185.00.
Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.