Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV12546, Date: 2023-04-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV12546 Hearing Date: April 3, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Plaintiff Esperanza Lopez’s motion
to have matters in requests for admissions deemed admitted is DENIED. The
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.
Sanctions
Sanctions are
mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request
for admissions as true when the failure to serve a timely response
necessitates this motion. (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 December 23, 2022, Plaintiff
propounded Request for Admissions, Set One, on Defendant. (Sterin Decl., ¶
2; Exh. A.) On January 23, 2023, Defendant provided verified responses to
Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One by the statutory deadline. However,
Defendant has responded only to 19 Requests for Admissions, out of total 30
requests, propounded by Plaintiff. (Id., Exh. B.) As of the date of filing the
present motion, Plaintiff’s counsel’s office has not received responses to
Requests for Admissions Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30.
(Id., ¶ 4.)
Defendant argues in opposition that it inadvertently
left out responses to request for admissions nos. 20-30. Defendant has now
provided responses to the requests for discovery, and thus, argues the motion
is moot.
The Court finds
that because Defendant provided timely responses, Plaintiff was required to
file a motion to compel further. The propounding party may bring motions to compel
further responses to interrogatories or requests for production if it believes
(1) the responses received are evasive, or (2) incomplete, or (3) if the
objections raised are meritless or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. §§
2030.300(a), 2031.310(a).) As such, this motion seeking timely responses
must be denied.
Monetary sanctions are also denied as
Defendant has timely responded. (Code Civ. Proc. Section 2033.280(c).)
Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiff
Esperanza Lopez’s motion to
have matters in requests for admissions deemed admitted is DENIED. The request
for sanctions is DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.