Case Number: 19STCV02772 Hearing Date: February 18, 2020 Dept: 28

Motion to Deem Matters in Request for Admissions (Set One) as True

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On January 28, 2019, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Brian Kenneth Hoppe (“Defendant”). The complaint was filed in subrogation for an automobile collision involving Defendant and Plaintiff’s insured on June 6, 2018.

December 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to deem the matter in Request for Admissions (Set One) as true pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b).

Trial is set for July 27, 2020.

PARTIES’ REQUESTS

Plaintiff asks the Court to deem the matters in Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Defendant because he failed to serve timely responses.

Plaintiff also asks the Court to impose $460 in monetary sanctions against Defendant and her counsel of record for abusing the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), a “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, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).” The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “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).)

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “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.”

DISCUSSION

On August 21, 2019, Plaintiff served Request for Admissions (Set One) on Defendant by U.S. mail. Defendant obtained an extension of time within which to respond to the Requests up to October 9, 2019. (Schoeck Decl., p. 5, Exh. B.) On October 8, 2019, Defendant served responses. (Schoeck Decl., p. 2, Exh. B; Patel Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. D.) Plaintiff demanded Defendant serve the outstanding verifications on or before November 20, 2019. (Schoeck Decl., p. 2, Exh. B.) Plaintiff admitted to the first request for admission and either objected or objected and stated Plaintiff lacked adequate information to admit or deny to the remaining requests. (Patel Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. D.) Plaintiff did not provide a verification of its single substantive response because Plaintiff cannot be found. (Patel Decl., ¶ 11.)

Plaintiff’s admission to the first request for admission without a verification is akin to no response at all. (See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Plaintiff’s responses that Plaintiff does not have enough information to admit or deny the request is also akin to no response at all. (See ibid.; see also Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 656-657.) Plaintiff’s objections need not be verified. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc., supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at pp. 656-657.)

The Court finds the motion is properly granted as to the first request for an admission in Request for Admissions (Set One). All other responses contain, at the very least, an objection. This is a response and, thus, the Court cannot deem the remaining requests as admitted against Plaintiff. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280.) Plaintiff must bring a motion to compel further to demand further responses. (See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 788.) Plaintiff has not done so.

Defendant’s counsel’s failure to find Defendant and Defendant’s indigency are not substantial justifications for Defendant’s abuse of the discovery process. However, sanctions are not properly imposed because Plaintiff’s motion is mostly invalid. Only one of Plaintiff’s requests for admissions is properly deemed admitted against Defendant. Moreover, Defendant had already admitted to the one request Defendant did not object to. Thus, this motion is, in all practical effect, unmeritorious.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Request number one in Plaintiff’s Request for Admission (Set One) served on Defendant is deemed admitted against Defendant.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.