Case Number: BC650138 Hearing Date: July 26, 2018 Dept: 7

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; MOTION DENIED AS MOOT

On February 10, 2017, Plaintiff Beverlee Cooke (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Vanram Sahakyan (erroneously sued as Sahakyan Vanram) (“Defendant”) for negligence relating to a February 22, 2015 automobile accident in which Defendant was providing an Uber ride to Plaintiff. On November 3, 2017, Defendant served Requests for Admissions, Set One on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Wendy C. Skillman, ¶ 5.) Plaintiff served no responses. (Skillman Decl., ¶¶ 6, 7.) Defendant moves for an order deeming admitted requests for admissions and monetary sanctions. (Skillman Decl., ¶¶ 8, 10.)

Where 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 of 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 of 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 of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

It appears Plaintiff served responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Requests for Admissions on June 26, 2018.

Defense counsel filed a supplemental declaration stating Plaintiff’s responses and opposition to this Motion were not received because Plaintiff had sent them to her prior office address. Defense counsel had notified Plaintiff’s counsel, by email, of her office’s change in address six months prior. (Skillman Supp. Decl., ¶ 11.) Defense counsel argues these responses are not timely and the motion to deem admitted should be granted.

It is true Plaintiff’s responses are not timely. However, where the party to whom requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing, a proposed response that is in substantial compliance, the court will not deem them admitted. Therefore, this Motion is denied as MOOT.

However, the court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even where the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a).)

First, Plaintiff’s Opposition to this Motion was untimely filed less than nine court days before the hearing. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Second, it is undisputed that Plaintiff failed to serve a timely response to Defendant’s request for discovery, necessitating the filing of this Motion. Plaintiff provides no reason for her failure to timely comply with her discovery obligations. Third, Plaintiff mailed her opposition and responses to the wrong address, despite receiving notice that defense counsel had moved.

Accordingly, the request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Monetary sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $476.00, for the $60.00 filing fee and two hours at defense counsel’s rate of $160.00 per hour. This $476.00 monetary sanction is to be paid to defense counsel within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.