Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV34911, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34911    Hearing Date: May 31, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Deem Bragg Investment to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (Set Two)

Tentative

The motion is denied.

Background

These two consolidated cases arise out of an automobile accident on November 1, 2019, on the 405 Freeway in Long Beach.

On September 22, 2021, in Case No. 21STCV34911, Tai Ha (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Bragg Investment Company, Inc. (“Bragg Investment”), Joshua Shane Gatton, and Does 1 through 50.  On September 30, 2021, in Case No. 21STCV35951, Philip Rafle filed a complaint against Joshua Gatton, Bragg Investment, Bragg Crane Service, and Does 1 through 20.

The two cases matters were related on February 22, 2022, and consolidated on September 21, 2022.

On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff served Requests for Admission (Set Two) (the “RFAs”) on Bragg Investment.  (Hong Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. 1.)  Prior to the filing of the motion, Bragg Investment had not served verified responses to the RFAs.  (Id., ¶ 6.)

On May 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion for a deemed-admitted order.  On filing, the hearing on the motion was set for May 31, 2024.  The trial is set for June 5, 2024.

No timely opposition was filed.  On May 28, 2024, Bragg Investment’s attorney filed a declaration attaching copies of verified responses to the RFAs, with the verification apparently served on May 24, 2024.

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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 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 truth of the matters specified 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).)

"Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).)

Discussion

On March 11, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ agreed upon ex parte application, continued the trial date to June 5, 2024, and reset all discovery deadlines based on the new trial date.  As a result, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020, subdivision (a), the last day for discovery motions to be heard in this case was on May 21, 2024.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is untimely.  On that basis, it is denied.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a deemed-admitted order.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.