Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 21STCV36132, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Under CCP § 2033.280, a party who fails to serve a timely response to requests for admissions “waives any objection to the requests….” In addition, 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....” CCP § 2033.280(b). The Code specifies that “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admissions have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the request for admissions that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” CCP § 2033.280(c).

In this case, requests for admissions were served on plaintiff on May 22, 2023. Moving defendant extended extensions of time to respond to October 11, 2023. [Exs. B-D]. Plaintiff did not request or obtain any further extension. [Clark Decl., para. 7]. No responses have been served. [Clark Decl., para. 7]. Plaintiff failed to serve timely responses and has therefore waived all objections. Defendant has filed a noticed motion requesting an order that the requests be deemed admitted as truth. Unless verified responses that are in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220 are served before the hearing, the court must grant the motion.

“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 admissions necessitated this motion.”

CCP § 2023.010 provides that misuse of the discovery process includes “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where there has been such conduct, under CCP § 2023.030(a), “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct....If a monetary sanction is authorized” by the statute, “ the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP § 2023.030(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.”

The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice. Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990, 2nd Dist.) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436.

In this case, plaintiff has failed to respond to an authorized method of discovery and defendant has submitted evidence that defendant has incurred expenses as a result of the conduct. Since the motion is unopposed, there is no evidence that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Defendant requests $3,157.50 in sanctions. These appear high for a motion of this nature. The time includes 2 hours at $295/hour to prepare a reply, when no opposition has been filed, so the reply should be brief, and 4 hours to attend the hearing, when the hearing can be attended remotely. The sum of sanctions to be awarded will be adjusted accordingly as follows: no hours preparing a reply (no opposition filed), 4 hours only preparing the motion, and one hour to attend the hearing remotely for an adjusted total attorney hours of 5 hours.

Plaintiff Sashile Wood has failed to serve timely responses substantially complying with the provisions of CCP § 2033.220 prior to the hearing on this motion. The Court therefore orders that all matters specified in Defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc.’s Requests for Admission, Set One, to Plaintiff Sashile Wood are deemed admitted as true, pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c).

Mandatory monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $1,475.00 (5.0 hours @ $295 per hour) [10.5 hours requested] [Amount Requested $3,157.50], which sum is to be awarded in favor of defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc. and against plaintiff Sashile Wood, payable within 30 days. CCP §§ 2033.280(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a), and CRC Rule 3.1030(a).

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. However, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.