Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV16972, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV16972, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16972 Hearing Date: February 6, 2024 Dept: 29

Motions to Deem the Truth of the Matter Asserted filed by Plaintiffs Ana Martinez and Walter Melendez.

Tentative

The motions are GRANTED.

Background

On May 23, 2022, Plaintiffs Ana Martinez and Walter Melendez (collectively “Plaintiffs’) filed their complaint against Defendant Abel Nathaniel Concho (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 50 for personal injuries arising out of an auto accident occurring on October 25, 2020. Defendant filed his answer on September 30, 2022.

On July 20, 2023, Plaintiff Martinez served on Defendant Request for Admissions (Set Two). (Plaintiff Martinez Motion, Pellegrino Decl., ¶ 3.) On August 30, 2023, Plaintiff Melendez served on Defendant Request for Admissions (Set Two). (Plaintiff Melendez Motion, Pellegrino Decl., ¶ 3.)

On December 5, 2023, each Plaintiff filed a motion to deem the truth of the matters asserted in the Request for Admission propounded on Defendant.

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., § 2023.030, 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

Plaintiffs request the Court deem as true the matters specified in the Requests for Admission (Set Two) propounded by Plaintiff Martinez and Requests for Admissions (Set Two) propounded by Plaintiff Melendez.

Plaintiffs need not show anything more. The Court GRANTS the motions of both Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs’ requests for sanctions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Given the relatively straightforward nature of a motion to deem the truth of the matters, and the economies of scale associated with filing multiple discovery motions, the Court sets sanctions on each motion in the amount of $436.65, calculated based on 1.5 hours of attorney work, multiplied by counsel’s billing rate of $250 per hour, plus a $61.65 filing fee. (See Pellegrino Decls., ¶ 9.)

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motions to deem the truth of the matters asserted are GRANTED.

The Court ORDERS that all matters specified in Plaintiff Martinez’s Requests for Admission (Set Two) and in Plaintiff Melendez’s Requests for Admissions (Set Two) are deemed admitted as true by Defendant.

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

The Court ORDERS Defendant to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to each Plaintiff in the amount of $436.65 ($873.30 in total) within 30 days of notice.

Moving Parties are ordered to give notice.