Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted and Request for Sanctions filed by Plaintiff Eduardo Reyes  

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Eduardo Reyes’ motion to have matters in requests for admissions deemed admitted is GRANTED. Plaintiff is entitled to an order establishing the truth of the matters in the request for admissions, set one, served on Defendant Jesus Panameno Vela. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. The Court imposes monetary sanctions in the amount of $760 against Defendant Jesus Panameno Vela and counsel of record Byron M. Purcell to be paid within 30 days of this order.

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.

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 November 16, 2021, Plaintiff propounded Request for Admissions, Set One, on Defendant Panameno Vela. (Williamson Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Responses were due on December 19, 2022. To date, Defendant has failed to provide any responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One. Plaintiff inquired twice, but both efforts were ignored. (Id., ¶ 3; Exh. B.)

As Plaintiff properly served the discovery request and Defendant failed to provide any responses, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order establishing the truth of the matters in the request for admissions served on Defendant.  Therefore, the motion is granted. 

As the motion is granted, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also granted, but in a reduced amount due to the simplicity of the motion. Thus, the Court imposes sanctions against Defendant and counsel of record Byron M. Purcell in the amount of $760 ($700 an hour for 1 hour, plus $60 in filing fees.)

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to have matters in requests for admissions deemed admitted is GRANTED. Plaintiff is entitled to an order establishing the truth of the matters in the request for admissions, set one, served on Defendant Jesus Panameno Vela. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. The Court imposes monetary sanctions in the amount of $760 against Defendant Jesus Panameno Vela and counsel of record Byron M. Purcell to be paid within 30 days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.