Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24IWUD00940, Date: 2024-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24IWUD00940    Hearing Date: August 12, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿ 

¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 August 12, 2024 

¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                      24IWUD00940

¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                           Donald Gill v. Princess Obienu .¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                   Defendant, Princess Obienu

¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:        Plaintiff, Donald Gill (No Opposition)

¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                       August 12, 2024

¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted  

                                               

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) DENIED.

 

 

I. BACKGROUND¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A.    Factual¿¿ 

On May 1, 2024, Plaintiff, Donald Gill (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Defendant, Princess Obienu (“Defendant”), and DOES 1 through 10. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant agreed to rent the premises at $2,400/month. Plaintiff contends that Defendant was served with a 60-day notice to quit on April 26, 2024.

 

On June 23, 2024, Defendant asserts that she served Requests for Admission, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One on Plaintiff. The case was then set for trial on June 25, 2024, two days later.  On June 24, 2024, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff objected to providing good faith reasonable responses. On July 24, 2024, Defendant notes that she reminded the Plaintiff again via email through his counsel, about her expectations to receive good-faith responsive responses to her demands for the Requests for Admission and Requests for Production of Documents since the trial had been continued. As of the date of the filing of the motion, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to serve good-faith responses.  The trial was continued but there was no order entered regarding the re-opening of pre-trial discovery nor any extension of the Discovery or motion cut-off dates.

 

Defendant filed a Section 170.6 challenge to Judge Hall, but no ruling was made on the peremptory challenge to Judge Hall until July 16, 2024, the date to which the trial had been continued from June 25, 2024.  Upon granting the 170.6 challenge, the case was thereafter transferred to Judge Frank in Department 8 for trial and to hear the then-pending defense motion for summary judgment.  Because defendant did not appear for the trial in Department 8, but had notified Judge Hall of a schedule conflict with another pending case in a different courthouse, Judge Frank continued the trial and MSJ hearing to July 24, 2025.  No party requested or made a motion to re-open discovery or to extend the discovery cut-off date.  But Defendant requested to continue the trial, which Judge Frank granted to August 12, 2024.

 

On August 8, 2024, four calendar days before the re-re-continued trial date, Defendant filed this Motion to Deem the Requests for Admissions as Admitted.

B.    Procedural¿¿ 

On August 8, 2024, Defendant, in pro per, filed this Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted. As of Sunday, August 11, 2024, no opposition has been filed.

II. ANALYSIS¿ 

 

A.    Legal Standard

 

Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(c), the court shall make the order deeming the truth of the matters admitted unless the responding party serves before the hearing a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Code Civ. Proc § 2033.220. Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220 requires that each answer either admits, denies or specifies that the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. As stated in Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates, the moving party is not required to meet and confer before bringing this action. (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates, 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395.)¿¿ 

 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)¿¿ 

 

B.    Discussion

 

Here, this Court DENIES this motion for multiple reasons as detailed below.

 

First, Plaintiff’s objection to Defendant’s propounded discovery is sustained. Parties have a statutory right to conduct discovery up to 30 days before the original trial date, unless otherwise stipulated. (Wagner v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1314.) In unlawful detainer cases, the discovery cut-off is five days before the original trial date, per Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.040(b)(1).  Here, the original trial day was set for June 25, 2024. As such, Defendant propounding discovery two days prior to that original trial date would be untimely.

 

Second, Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1170.8, Defendant was required to bring this motion at least five (5) court dates before the first date set for trial. This motion was filed on August 8, 2024, with a hearing date of August 12, 2024, only 4 days before the continued trial. As such, Defendant’s motion violates Code of Civil Procedure section 1170.8.

 

Next, this Court notes that Defendant’s motion is entitled Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted, but that Defendant also includes what looks like a separate statement for the Requests for Production of Documents as well. There apparently were twenty-seven (27) Requests for Production of Documents. Because the document requests were served at the same time as the RFAs, i.e., June 22, 2024, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.250(b) required Defendant to have given Plaintiff at least five days to respond but the trial was then set for June 25, only 3 days later.  Plaintiff’s objection to the 11th-hour discovery requests would thus be sustained.  Moreover, the discovery motion cut-off under Section 1170.8 is five days before trial, and this motion was filed four days before trial.  The tardy motion bearing on tardy discovery requests is thus denied.

 

 

III. CONCLUSION

 

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted is DENIED, and any implicit motion to compel production of documents is also DENIED.  Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s rulings.