Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV16429, Date: 2023-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV16429    Hearing Date: October 5, 2023    Dept: 31

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion to have matters in requests for admissions deemed admitted is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant Chris Furie and counsel of record Ronald Richards are ordered to pay $510 in monetary sanctions within 30 days. Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Legal Standard

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (b) 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…. The Court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect…. (c) 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 section 2033.280(b)-(c).)

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true.  (Code Civ. Proc. Section 2033.280(c).) 

Under CCP section 2023.030(a), “[t]he 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 any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) 

Discussion

On May 12, 2023, Plaintiff propounded upon Defendant, Request for Admissions, Set Three. (Vartapetova Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Defendant did not provide responses. (Id., ¶ 3.)

In opposition, Defendant argues that responses were provided the same day the motion was filed, and thus, the motion to deem admitted is moot. Defendant argues sanctions should not be awarded.

The Court finds the motion is moot because Defendant served responses prior to the hearing on this motion and Plaintiff has not argued the responses are not in substantial compliance. Plaintiff’s counsel argues that Defendant improperly includes objections, however, Plaintiff must file a motion to compel further, after participating in an IDC. This motion is to compel responses, which have been provided.

However, the request for sanctions is not moot. Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true. (CCP section 2033.280(c).) However, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is unreasonable. The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant and counsel of record in the amount of $510 ($450 an hour, plus $60 in filing fees).

Defendant’s request for sanctions under CCP sections 2023.030 for the alleged misuse of discovery is denied. In a recent case, City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504, the Court of appeal concluded that: "sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 do not independently authorize the trial court to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery.” (Id.)

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to have matters in requests for admissions deemed admitted is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant Chris Furie and counsel of record Ronald Richards are ordered to pay $510 in monetary sanctions within 30 days. Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.