Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV27893, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV27893 Hearing Date: August 11, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
The request for an order compelling further responses to the
requests for admission is DENIED as moot.
The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED.
Background
This case arises out of an automobile accident in the City of
Long Beach on July 3, 2021. On August
26, 2022, Plaintiff Mariana Castellanos (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in
this action alleging causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general
negligence against Defendant Erik Kloppe (“Defendant) and Does 1 through
100. Defendant filed his answer on
October 28, 2022.
On or about November 1, 2022, Plaintiff sent Requests for Admission,
Set One, to Defendant. (Anapol Decl.,
Exh. 1.) On or about February 10, 2023,
Defendant sent responses that consisted entirely of objections to each
request. (Id., Exh. 2.)
Following communication between counsel and an Informal
Discovery Conference, Plaintiff filed this motion on July 19, 2023. Defendant filed an opposition on August 2,
and Plaintiff filed a reply on August 3.
Legal Standard
“On receipt of a response to requests for admission, the party
requesting admission may move for an order compelling a further response if
that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) An answer to a
particular request is evasive or incomplete.
(2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too
general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290,
subd. (a).)
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any
party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to
compel further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction
acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
imposition of the sanction unjust.”
(Id., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)
“[P]roviding untimely responses
does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel
responses].” (Sinaiko Healthcare
Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th
390, 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; see also Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 3.1348(a) [“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”].)
Preliminary Issues
Defendant argues that service of the motion was one day
late. He filed his opposition two days
late. The Court will accept and consider
Defendant’s late-filed opposition. Under
these circumstances, there appears to be no prejudice to Defendant arising from
the late service, and so the Court will consider the motion on the merits.
Discussion
Plaintiff initially filed this motion after receiving
responses to the requests for admission that consisted entirely of
objections. (Anapol Decl., Exh. 2.) On or about August 2, 2023, after the
Informal Discovery Conference, Defendant served verified further responses to
the requests. (Reider Decl., ¶ 27 & Exh. C.) Defendant’s counsel also states that he was
unable to contact Defendant for several months (from August 2022 through March
2023, and again from May through mid July 2023), and that was why Defendant did
not respond sooner to the requests for admission. (Id., ¶¶ 8-22, 28.)
Given that Defendant has (belatedly) provided further
responses to the requests for admission, an order compelling such responses is
unnecessary. Accordingly, the Court will
DENY the request for an order compelling further responses.
Providing untimely responses to
discovery after a motion to compel is filed does not, however, render moot a
request for sanctions. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific
Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409; Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 3.1348(a).) The
Court finds that under these circumstances, an award of sanctions against the
Defendant is appropriate, as there is no justification (substantial or otherwise)
for the delay in providing substantive response to the requests for admission
for more than six months. No sanctions
will be awarded against Defendant’s counsel, however, as he has demonstrated his
diligence in attempting to contact Defendant throughout the period in question,
and the Court finds that an award of sanctions against counsel in these circumstances
would be unjust.
Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions under the Civil
Discovery Act to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,250, calculated as 2.5 hours
multiplied by counsel’s billing rate of $500 per hour. (See Anapol Decl., ¶ 7.)
Conclusion
The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s request for an order
compelling Defendant to provide further responses to the requests for admission.
The Court GRANTS the request for sanctions. Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions in the
amount of $1,250 to Plaintiff within 30 days of notice of this order.
Moving party to give notice.