Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 23GDCV02562, Date: 2024-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Under CCP § 2033.280 (a), a party who fails to serve a timely response to requests for admissions “waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product….” In addition, the requesting party may move for an order that “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 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.” CCP § 2033.280(c).

In this case, requests for admissions were served to defendant on January 25, 2024. Defendant requested extensions of time, which were granted, but defendant then failed to serve responses by the last requested extension on March 4, 2024. [Abrahamian Decl., paras. 3, 4; Ex. C]. When no responses were served, counsel for plaintiff contacted defendant’s counsel and extended several extensions of time for defendant to respond to the discovery without objections. [Abrahamian Decl., paras. 4-9; Exs. C-H]. The last extension was to July 5, 2024. [Ex. H]. On July 9 and July 11, 2024, plaintiff emailed defendant’s counsel in an attempt to meet and confer regarding defendant’s failure to serve responses, and offered a further extension to July 12, 2024, but as of July 15, 2024, no responses had been provided. [Abrahamian Decl., paras. 12, 13, Exs. I, J].

Defendant has failed to serve timely responses and has therefore waived all objections. Plaintiff has filed a noticed motion requesting an order that the requests be deemed admitted as truth. Unless satisfactory proposed responses are served before the hearing, the court must grant the motion.

The court notes that the notice of motion seeks an order both that requests for admissions be deemed admitted and that the genuineness of documents be deemed admitted, but it does not appear that the set of Requests for Admissions submitted with the moving papers includes any requests concerning the genuineness of documents. The motion will be granted deeming all matters specified in the Requests for Admissions admitted.

“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.”

CCP § 2023.010 provides that misuses of the discovery process include: “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where there has been such conduct, under CCP section 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).

In this case, the motion will be granted, defendant has failed to respond to an authorized method of discovery and plaintiff has submitted evidence that plaintiff has incurred expenses as a result of the conduct. The imposition of sanctions is mandatory, and, moreover, the motion is unopposed, so there is no evidence that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Sanctions must be awarded. Plaintiff requests $2,560, which seems a bit high for a motion of this nature at a $500 per hour billing rate. One hour is sought to prepare a reply, when there is no opposition, so this time will be reduced. Two hours are sought to travel to and appear at the hearing, when a remote appearance is an option. The time will be reduced accordingly as follows: 3 total attorney hours at $500.00 per hour for a total of $1,500.00 in attorneys hours.

Plaintiff Arpik Keshishyan’s Motion for Order Deeming Admitted the Truth of Facts and Genuineness of Documents is GRANTED. Defendant Sophia Aftandelian has failed to serve timely responses, or a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220 prior to the hearing on this motion. The Court therefore orders that all matters specified in Plaintiff Arpik Keshishyan’s Request for Admissions, Set One are deemed admitted as true, pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c).

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 $1,500.00 (3.0 hours @ $500/hour) [5 hours requested] plus $60 in filing fees [Amount Requested $2,560], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Arpik Keshishyan and against defendant Sophia Aftandelian, payable within 30 days. CCP §§ 2033.280(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(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.