Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV23840, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23840    Hearing Date: August 21, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to have Truth of Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions Deemed Admitted is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant’s counsel is DENIED.

Background

Clint Arradaza (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on July 19, 2019. Miguel Aguilar (“Defendant”) negligently caused an automobile collision with Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on June 28, 2021. Defendant filed the Answer on January 25, 2022.

On or about September 28, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Admissions, Set Two. (Choo Decl., ¶ 5 & Exh. 2.) Defendant never responded. (Id., ¶ 7, 10.)

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for an Order to have Truth of Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions Deemed Admitted and for Sanctions of $754.25 (“Motion”). Defendant filed opposition briefs (“Opposition Papers”) on August 8, 2023. No reply papers have 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).)

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).)

Analysis

Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Admissions, Set Two, in September 2022. (Choo Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendant has not served responses. (Id., ¶ 7, 10.)

In the Opposition, Defendant’s counsel states that, despite their extensive efforts, they were not able to contact Defendant from November 2022 until August 2, 2023. (Sears Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.)

Plaintiff has made the showing requiring for the requested “deem admitted” order. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set Two, is deemed admitted.

Defendant’s conduct in not communicating with his counsel for at least nine months led to his failure to serve a timely response to the requests for admission and necessitated this motion. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the request for sanctions as against Defendant. Based upon the statements in the declaration filed with the Opposition, the Court DENIES the requests for sanctions as against Defendant’s counsel.

Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $754.25, calculated as 2.5 hours of reasonable work at a rate of $275 per hour plus costs of $66.75. (Choo Decl., ¶¶ 13-14.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set Two, is deemed admitted.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED as against Defendant (but DENIED as against Defendant’s counsel). Defendant is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $754.25 within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.