Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV24624, Date: 2024-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24624    Hearing Date: August 9, 2024    Dept: 29

Preciado v. Suastegui
23STCV24624
Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Deeming Defendant to Have Admitted The Matters Specified in Requests for Admission

Tentative

The motion is denied.

Background

On October 10, 2023, Timoteo O. Preciado (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Diana Rodriguez Suastegui, Diego Alquicira (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 25 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an accident occurring on January 19, 2023.

On December 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

On January 5, 2024, Defendants filed their answer to the FAC.

On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant Diana Rodriguez Suastegui (“Defendant”) with Requests for Admissions (Set One). (Garcia Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. A.)  Defendant did not respond.  (Id., ¶ 6.)

On July 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion for a deemed-admitted order and for sanctions.

On August 6, 2024, Defendant filed her opposition.  Attached to the opposition are responses to the Requests for Admission served on August 1.  (Okunor Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. B.)

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

Plaintiff served Defendant on January 8, 2024, with Requests for Admissions (Set One). (Garcia Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. A.)  Defendant did not serve a timely response.  (Id., ¶ 6.)

On August 1, 2024, Defendant served verified responses to the Requests for Admission.  (Okunor Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. B.) These responses are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a deemed-admitted order.

The request for sanctions is DENIED.  In general, sanctions are mandatory where, as here, a party’s “failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated” a motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Here, however, Plaintiff did not request sanctions in the notice of motion and motion, and the brief reference to sanctions in the caption does not give sufficient as to against whom sanctions are sought.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for a Deemed-Admitted Order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions also DENIED.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.