Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV12014, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV12014, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV12014 Hearing Date: January 5, 2024 Dept: 29

Tentative

The motion for a deemed admitted order is GRANTED.

The request for sanctions is GRANTED in part.

Background

On March 29, 2021, Plaintiffs Olivia Marie Robles, Maria Luisa Robles, and Maria Theresa Robles (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint arising out of a vehicle accident on April 16, 2018, against Defendant Lavina Rashanda Ireland (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, and statutory liability. Defendant filed her answer on August 31, 2022.

On March 31, 2023, Plaintiff Olivia Marie Robles served Defendant with Requests for Admissions (Set One). (Garcia Decl., ¶ 5 & Exh. A.) Defendant did not serve responses. (Id., ¶ 7.)

On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Deem the Truth of the Matters Asserted in Request for Admissions (Set One).

No opposition has been filed.

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., § 2023.020, 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

On March 31, 2023, Plaintiff Olivia Marie Robles served Defendant with Requests for Admissions (Set One). (Garcia Decl., ¶ 5 & Exh. A.) Defendant did not respond. (Id., ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff need not show anything more. Her motion to deem admitted as true the matters specified in her requests for admission is GRANTED.

The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in part. Given the relatively straightforward nature of a motion for a deemed admitted order, and the economies of scale associated with filing multiple discovery motions, the Court sets sanctions on each motion in the amount of $585.00, calculated based on 1.5 hours of attorney work, multiplied by reasonable billing rate of $350.00 per hour plus the $60.00 filing fee.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.

The Court ORDERS that the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (Set One) are deemed admitted as true.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in part.

The Court ORDERS Defendant and the Chavez Legal Group, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to Plaintiff in the amount of $585 within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.