Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV24812, Date: 2024-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24812    Hearing Date: April 22, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Deem Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles

Tentative

The motion is granted in part.

Background

On August 2, 2022, Michael Thomas and Chase Thomas, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Michael Thomas, filed a complaint against Rafael Ramos Robles and the City of Los Angeles (“City”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an accident occurring on November 8, 2021.

On October 18, 2022, City filed an answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint against Roes 1 through 10.

In or about November 2023, City served discovery on Plaintiff Michael Thomas (“Plaintiff”), including Requests for Admission (Set One) (“RFAs”).  (Valadez Decl., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A-B).  Plaintiff acknowledged receipt, asked for, and was granted an extension of time respond.  (Id., ¶ 4 & Exh. C.)  On January 18, 2024, Plaintiff served responses to the RFAs.  (Id., ¶ 5 & Exh. D.)  Plaintiff provided substantive responses to six of the eight interrogatories and objected to the other two.  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff did not, however, serve a verification of his responses.

On March 6, 2024, City filed this motion for a deemed-admitted order. 

Plaintiff has not filed an 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.” (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).)

“[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

City served Plaintiff with RFAs.  (Valadez Decl., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A-B).  Plaintiff served responses and objections but did not serve a verification.  (Id., ¶¶ 5-6 & Exh. D.) 

“Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Super. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the motion.

When a party does not respond to RFAs, the Court “shall” issue an order deeming as true the matters specified in the RFAs.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (b) & (c).)

Plaintiff has not responded to RFAs Nos. 1-3 and 5-7.  The truth of the matters specified in those RFAs is deemed admitted as between Plaintiff and City.

Plaintiff has objected to RFAs Nos. 4 and 8.  If City contends that the objections are without merit, City may seek an order compelling further responses to those RFAs (if all procedural requirements are met).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a).)  A deemed-admitted order under section 2033.280 is not appropriate, however, where the responding party has served objections.

City requests sanctions in its memorandum and supporting declaration but not in the notice of motion and motion.  The request is denied.  A request for sanctions must be included in the notice of motion and motion. 

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS City’s Motion in part.

The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in City’s Requests for Admission (Set One), Nos. 1-3 and 5-7.

The Court DENIES City’s request for sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.