Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV19688, Date: 2024-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19688    Hearing Date: December 13, 2024    Dept: 29

Odaibo v. City of Los Angeles
22STCV19688
Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Deeming Defendant to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set Two).

Tentative

The motion is denied.

Background

On June 16, 2022, Kemisi Odaibo (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 50 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an automobile accident occurring on March 21, 2022.

On September 20, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.

On February 28, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Giovani Santamaria Ortega (“Ortega”) as Doe 1.

On July 7, 2024, Ortega filed an answer.

On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion for an order deeming Defendant to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (Set Two).  Plaintiff also seeks sanctions.

Defendant filed an opposition on December 2.  (This was untimely, but the Court exercises its discretion to consider the late-filed opposition.)  Plaintiff filed a reply on December 6.

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).)

The late service of untimely discovery responses after a discovery motion is filed “does not divest the trial court of its authority” to hear the motion.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 407.)  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,” the court retains the authority to 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 February 8, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant with Request for Admissions Set Two. (Ostoia Decl., ¶ 6 & Exh. 1.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that as of the date that the motion was filed, no response had been received.  (Id., ¶ 9.)

Defendant did, however, serve objection-only responses to the Requests for Admission on November 5, 2024, shortly before this motion was filed.  (Barron Decl., ¶ 7 & Exh. B.)

The Court finds that Defendant has served responses, prior to the hearing, that are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.  If, as appears to be the case, Defendant has improperly asserted waived objections, Plaintiff has a complete remedy available under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290 – which authorizes a propounding party to obtain an order compelling a further response when (among other reasons) the responding party has asserted objections that are “without merit.”

The Court recognizes that Defendant’s responses were not verified, but an objection-only response need not be verified.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also denied.  Sanctions are mandatory when the failure to serve a timely response “necessitated” the motion for a deemed-admitted order.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Defendant did not serve timely responses, but it did serve responses before Plaintiff filed this motion.  Under these circumstances, the Court does not find that the filing of the motion was “necessitated” by Defendant’s failure to serve a timely response.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.