Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV45369, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV45369 Hearing Date: November 28, 2023 Dept: 29
Tentative
Ruling
The motion
of Defendant Uninational Corporation for an
order deeming admitted the truth of the matters specified in Requests for
Admission (Set One) is DENIED.
Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in part.
Background
Plaintiff Amber Santos (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on November 29,
2018, she was injured when a temporary fence at a construction site on Atlantic
Avenue in Long Beach fell on her. On
November 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action asserting
claims for premises liability and negligence against Defendants Uninational
Corporation, Healthcare Partners, and Does 1 through 20.
On May 24 and November 17, 2022, Defendant Uninational Corporation
(“Defendant”) and Defendant Optumcare Management LLC (erroneously named as
Healthcare Partners) filed their Answers.
On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff amended the Complaint to name Tanc
and Vogel Construction, LLC as Doe 1.
On November 16, 2023, the Court, at the request of Plaintiff,
dismissed all claims against Optumcare Management, LLC with prejudice.
As it relates to the matter currently before the Court, Defendant served
Plaintiff with written discovery, including Requests for Admission (Set One)
(the “RFAs”), on May 4, 2023. (Robson
Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff did not serve a
timely response. (Id., ¶ 3.) On June 15, 2023, Defendant filed the motion before
the Court for an order deeming admitted as true the matters specified in the
RFAs. Defendant also seeks sanctions.
On October 23, 2023, Plaintiff served responses to the RFAs. (Reed Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that the responses
were verified, but the verification is not attached to counsel’s declaration. On November 13, Plaintiff filed an opposition
to the motion.
Defendant has not filed a reply.
Legal Standard
A party must
respond to requests for admission within 30 days after service. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2033.250, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for admission are directed
does not provide a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order
that the truth of the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Id.,
§ 2033.280, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for such a motion, and no meet
and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2033.280; Sinaiko
Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148
Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).) In addition,
a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all
objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280,
subd. (a).)
The court “shall”
make the order that the truth of the matters specified in the request be deemed
admitted unless the court “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.” (Id.,
§ 2033.280, subd. (c); see St. Mary v. Super. Ct. (2014) 223
Cal.App.4th 762, 778-780.)
“It is mandatory
that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with
Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a
timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion [to deem
admitted the matters contained in the requests for admission].” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd.
(c).)
In Chapter 7 of the Civil
Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d),
defines “[m]isuses of the discovery process” to include “[f]ailing to respond
to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where a party or attorney has engaged in
misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction in
the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by
anyone as a result of that conduct.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)
“[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the
trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc.,
supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 407.) Even
if the untimely response “does not contain objections [and] substantially
resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses … the trial court
retains the authority to hear the motion.”¿ (Id. at pp. 408-409.)¿ This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to
respond to discovery in a timely fashion.”¿ (Id. at p. 408.)¿ If “the propounding party [does not] take the motion off
calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,”
the trial court may “deny the motion to compel responses as essentially
unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions.”¿ (Id. at p. 409.) “The court may award sanctions
under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel
discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to
the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving
party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)
Discussion
Defendant served RFAs on May 4, 2023. (Robson Decl., ¶ 2.) When Plaintiff did not respond, Defendant
filed this motion.
Plaintiff eventually served responses on October 23, 2023. (Reed Decl., ¶ 2.) The Court has reviewed these responses and
they are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. The Court accepts the representation of
Plaintiff’s counsel that these responses were verified and, based on Plaintiff’s
showing, the Court DENIES the request of Defendant for a deemed-admitted
order. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2033.280, subd. (c); St. Mary, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at pp. 778-780.)
The Court GRANTS in part Defendant’s request for sanctions. Plaintiff did not serve a timely response to
the RFAs and, even after this motion was filed in June, Plaintiff did not serve
responses until more than four months later.
Plaintiff’s failure to serve timely responses made the filing of this motion
necessary. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) (Id., ¶ 3.) In light of the relatively straightforward
nature of a motion for a deemed-admitted order, the Court sets sanctions in the
amount of $700, calculated as 1.75 hours of attorney time multiplied by counsel’s
billing rate of $400 per hour. (See Robson
Decl., ¶ 4.)
Conclusion
Defendant Uninational Corporation’s motion for an order deeming admitted the
truth of the matters specified in Requests for Admission (Set One) is DENIED.
Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in part. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Amber Santos to
pay Defendant $700 in monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act within 30
days of notice of this ruling.
Moving party to give notice.