Judge Robert S. Draper, Case 22STCV01184 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFF HUMANOIDS, INC.’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED THE GENUINENESS OF ALL DOCUMENTS REQUESTED IN PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST VAGATOR PRODUCTIONS SARL AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,740

Plaintiff Humanoids, Inc.’s Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted the Genuineness of all Documents Request in Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admission is DENIED. The request for Monetary Sanctions Against Vagator Productions Sarl and its Counsel of Record is GRANTED. Sanctions in the amount of $1,375 are jointly and severally imposed on Defendant and its Counsel of Record. Sanctions are payable within 10 days after the date of this order.

This case arises from a contract dispute. Humanoids, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Vagator Productions Sarl (“Defendant”) entered into a written agreement on November 27, 2019 to co-publish a book (aka the “Project”). (First Amended Complaint, hereinafter, “FAC”, ¶ 6.) The agreement was later amended and under the terms of the amended agreement, the agreement as a whole could “be terminated at any time by either party by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, giving three months’ notice.” (FAC, ¶ 7.) After collaboration between the parties broke down, Plaintiff exercised this right of termination under the agreement. (FAC, ¶ 9.) However, Defendant contests this exercise to termination of the agreement, and per Plaintiff this contesting of the termination is allegedly in breach of the contract. (FAC, ¶ 10.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges Defendant crowdfunded and sold issues of a magazine in relation to the Project without the authority to do so. (FAC, ¶ 24.)

Plaintiff filed their initial Complaint on January 11, 2022. Plaintiff then filed their FAC on September 1, 2022. On November 30, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with Request for Admissions, Set One by personal service. These included the Request for Admission Regarding Genuineness of Documents, the request that is the subject of the instant Motion. Both parties granted mutual extensions, which permitted responses by January 20, 2023. However, Plaintiff never received a response from Defendant for the Requests for Admissions Regarding the Genuineness of Documents. Plaintiff then filed the instant Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted the Genuineness of all Documents Request in Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admission and for Monetary Sanctions Against Vagator Productions Sarl and its Counsel of Record (“Motion”) on March 20, 2023. Defendant filed opposition papers on May 3, 2023. Plaintiff filed reply papers on May 9, 2023.

A motion to deem admitted requests for admissions lies based upon a showing of failure to respond timely. (CCP §2033.280(b); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, disapproved on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983.) Requests for admissions must be deemed admitted where no responses in substantial compliance was served before the hearing. (CCP §2033.280(c).) As to motions to deem matters admitted, no meet and confer is required. (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 393, 395, overruled on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 973, 983.)

“[A] motion to have admission requests deemed admitted may not be granted where the record establishes ... that (1) proposed responses to the requests have been served prior to the hearing on the motion and (2) such responses are in substantial compliance with the provisions of section 2033, subdivision (f)(1).” (Tobin v. Oris (1992) 3 Cal. App. 4th 814, 828, overruled on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 973, 983 n.12.) Courts evaluate tardy responses to requests for admissions, in toto, to determine whether they substantially comply with the code, and do not evaluate each individual response. (St. Mary v. Sup. Ct. (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779-80.)

Here, Plaintiff argues in their instant Motion that Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Admissions, including admitting the genuineness of the documents on November 30, 2022. (Motion, 2:7-9.) Mutual extensions were given, and the deadline thereafter was January 20, 2023, however, Defendant did not serve responses by the deadline. (Motion, 2:21-23.)

Defendant contends this was simply an oversight on their part. Plaintiff served five sets of written discovery requests on Defendant including one set of Requests for Admissions (RFAs) with two attachments: one to admit the truth of admissions and a second to admit the genuineness of documents. (Opposition Papers, 2:3-7.) Defendant articulates they, by mistake, simply did not respond to the second attachment to the RFAs. Defendant contends further that after serving responses to the first attachment of the RFAs for admissions of fact on January 20, 2023 and mistakenly not responding to the second attachment of the RFAs to admit the genuineness of documents, the parties engaged in a lengthy meet and confer process.

Since February 8, 2023, Defendant received eight meet and confer letters. (Opposition Papers, 3:17.) The parties also met and conferred via telephone for an hour and a half. (Id. at line 20.) Defendant argues that at no point did Plaintiff bring up the fact that Defendant had not responded to the second attachment to the RFAs - to admit the genuineness of documents. (Id. at line 23.) Defendant argues that Defendant served supplemental responses to Humanoids’ Request for Production, Special Interrogatories, and the second set of Form Interrogatories on March 3, 2023. (Id. at line 26-27.) But then at the end of the business day on Friday, March 17, 2023, Defendant received Plaintiff’s motion requesting an order from the Court deeming each document genuine and for monetary sanctions. (Opposition Papers, 4:3-6.)

Defendant then served a substantially compliant response to the second attachment of the RFAs to admit the genuineness of documents on March 22, 2023. (Opposition Papers, 4:20-22.) Closing out their argument, Defendant argues as a matter of law, the Court must deny the motion. (Ibid.) The Court agrees, and Tobin guides us to the same conclusion.

However, the sanctions must be granted per CCP § 2033.280(c). Law governing failure to respond under this section is unforgiving. Plaintiff’s counsel provides the following calculations through the Declaration of Charles M. Coate (“Coate Dec.”) within the Motion:

Accordingly, Plaintiff Humanoids, Inc.’s Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted the Genuineness of all Documents Request in Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admission is DENIED. However, the request for Monetary Sanctions Against Vagator Productions Sarl and its Counsel of Record is GRANTED . However, the time spent at total of eight hours by two attorneys is unreasonable. The Court grants sanctions in the amount of $1,375 (1 hour of attorney time at $525 per hour, 2 hours of attorney time at $395 per hour, and $60 motions fee).