Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: BC722729, Date: 2025-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC722729    Hearing Date: June 10, 2025    Dept: 45

BRIAN WILLIAMS v. DELBERT LINDSEY HODGES

motionS to compel discovery responses AND TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE MSC AND TRIAL DATE

Date of Hearing:        June 10, 2025                                     Trial Date:       N/A

Department:              45                                                        Case No.BC722729

Moving Party:            Defendant Hodge

Responding Party:     No Opposition

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff BRIAN WILLIAMS (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint on September 21, 2018.

Plaintiff’s remaining claim is a negligence cause of action. Defendant DELBERT LINDSEY HODGE (“Defendant”) filed and served an Answer to the Third Amended Complaint on or about August 10, 2023.

Hodge properly Served Defendant’s Request for Admissions (Set One) and Special Interrogatories  on February 4, 2025. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.260, Plaintiff’s responses were due on March 11, 2025. However, Plaintiff failed to provide responses. Defendant now moves to compel plaintiff to provide responses to the interrogatories without objection and to have the admissions deemed admitted.  

Defendant also noticed plaintiff’s deposition for March 11, 2025.  The notice was served by mail on plaintiff.  Plaintiff failed to appear for his deposition and defendant took a notice of non-appearance.  Defendant now moves the court to order plaintiff to appear for his deposition.  

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to any of the motions. 

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendant’s Motion to Compel plaintiff to provide further responses to special interrogatories is granted.

Defendant’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is granted. 

Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to appear for deposition is granted. 

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves the court for an order deeming the truth of those matters in the Request for Admission, Set One, served on plaintiff, as well as for an order compelling plaintiff to provide further responses without objections to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One.   

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve a timely response to the discovery request waives any objection to the request, including one based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (CCP §§2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.010, the propounding party may also move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (CCP § 2033.280(b).)

Defendant propounded discovery on plaintiff on February 4, 2025.   At the time of the filing of the motion, no responses had been received. No responses have been provided prior to the hearing.  Accordingly, both motions are granted.   The requests for admission are deemed admitted and plaintiff must provide further responses to the interrogatories within 20 days. 

Plaintiff has also failed to produce himself for a properly noticed deposition.   The motion to compel his appearance is also granted.  Plaintiff is ordered to appear at a time and place selected by defendant for his deposition within the next 30 days. 

The following admissions have been deemed admitted:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:

Admit YOU have no facts to support YOUR contention that DEFENDANT was negligent as alleged in YOUR Complaint on file herein.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:

Admit YOU have no facts to support YOUR contention that Defendant is liable for negligent entrustment as alleged in YOUR complaint on file herein.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:

Admit you have no facts to support YOUR contention that Defendant is violated YOUR civil rights alleged in YOUR complaint on file herein.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:

Admit DEFENDANT was not responsible for YOUR injuries as a result of the INCIDENT.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:

Admit YOU have not suffered any medical damages as a result of the INCIDENT

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:

ADMIT that you have incurred no medial expenses as a resutk of the ICNIDENT.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7:

Admit that you had no wage loss as a result of the INCIDENT

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:

Admit that YOU will not lose future earnings a result of the INCIDENT.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9:

Admit that the INCIDENT was YOUR fault.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10:

Admit that YOU were talking on YOUR cellular phone at the time of the INCIDENT.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11:

Admit that YOU were looking at YOUR cellular phone at the time of the INCIDENT

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATE

Plaintiff filed a motion to continue the MSC and Trial Date and for other unspecified relief on May 9, 2025.  As the court understands the motion, plaintiff is seeking more time to have this matter set for trial.  Given that the appeal was dismissed on August 29, 2024, the court believes that the time to bring this case to trial may have already expired, accepting the analysis and time calculation made by the prior judge, Judge Mark Windham.  Instead of setting trial, the court intends to set an OSC re dismissal for failure to comply with the “Five Year Rule,” C.C.P. Section 583.340.