2016-00197389-CU-OR

Antranick Harrentsian vs. Richard Hoffman

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Deem Matters Admitted

Filed By: Harrentsian, Antranick

Self-represented Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Deeming Requests for Admissions Admitted is denied.

Defendant Richard Hoffman filed a response to the motion on May 24, 2018, two court days before the hearing. The response contains amended responses to the Requests for Admission that he contends were served on May 23.

Plaintiff served the Request For Admissions, Set No. One, on Defendant Richard Hoffman on March 27, 2018. On April 25, 2018, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel Richard Hoffman to provide further responses to the Requests for Admission, on or before May 9, 2018. 2018. The Court order of April 25 did not state that the further responses were to be made without objections. Plaintiff received no further responses as of May 16, the date this motion was filed. (Antranick Harrentsian Decl., ¶ 3.).

Defendant Richard Hoffman now states that he has served further responses on the plaintiff.

CCP 2033.290(e) provides that If a party fails to obey an order compelling further response to requests for admission, the court may order that the matters involved in the requests be deemed admitted. This statutory language is distinct from that of CCP 2033.280(c) that states the court “shall” deem requests admitted if no responses to the requests were served prior to the motion and no responses to the requests are thereafter served before the hearing.

The Court declines to exercise its discretion to deem the requests for admission admitted. Defendant served further responses before the hearing. Pursuant to CCP 2033.280(c) when a motion to deem matters admitted is brought when no responses are served, a party may avoid deemed admissions if they serve responses before the hearing. Similarly, if a party does not obey a court order to provide further responses by a certain date pursuant to CCP 2033.290(a), but provides them before the hearing on a motion to deem them admitted, the court properly exercises its discretion to deny the motion to deem them admitted.

Sanctions are ordered to be paid by defendant Richard Hoffman to Plaintiff in the requested amount of $15.00 to cover photocopy costs. The failure to obey the court order in a timely manner necessitated this motion, therefore defendant is ordered to pay these sanctions. Parties appearing in pro per may not recover attorneys’ fees through discovery sanctions. However, if pro se litigants (including pro se lawyers) actually incur expenses for computer-assisted legal research, or photocopying, or transportation to and from court, or any other identifiable item, there is no reason those expenses cannot be recovered as discovery sanctions. Kravitz v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1015, 1020-1021.