Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV26847, Date: 2025-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26847    Hearing Date: May 22, 2025    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On January 21, 2025, Plaintiffs Rick Millan, Silvia Millan, Michael Millan, Samantha Millan, and Tommy Millan served Form Interrogatories – General (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Production of Documents (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One).  Defendant Milner Roofing Inc. never served responses.

On May 2, 2025, Plaintiffs filed motions to compel responses and to deem the RFAs admitted.  Each motion includes a request for sanctions.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)

When a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).)  The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “unless it 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).)

Defendant filed no oppositions to these motions and did not serve timely responses.  It does not appear that Defendant served substantially compliant responses prior to the hearing.

Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to provide verified responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories – General (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One), within 30 days.

Requests for Admission (Set One) is deemed admitted by Defendant.

The requests for sanctions are granted in part.  Defendant is ordered to pay total sanctions of $3,000.00 (8 hours at $375/hour) to Plaintiffs within 30 days.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 22nd day of May 2025