SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

ROBERTO CONTRERAS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: 19STCV24022

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE AS ADMITTED AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Date: March 10, 2020

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Roberto Contreras

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant General Motors LLC

The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s complaint arises from alleged mechanical issues he experienced with respect to a 2018 Chevrolet Traverse. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of the Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Express Warranty; (2) violation of the Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Implied Warranty; and (3) negligent repair.

Plaintiff filed a motion for an order deeming the following requests for admission as admitted: 6-11; 13-15; 23-25; 34-36; 41; 46-48; 54-56; 64-67; 73-76; 83-84; 86; 94-96; 102-104; 106-109; 111-112; and 118-119. Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions against Defendant and/or its counsel in the amount of $4,186.44.

Plaintiff asserts that he served his request for admissions, set one on Defendant. Plaintiff contends that despite granting Defendant four extensions, Defendant produced unverified responses and objections signed by Defendant’s counsel only.

Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that: (1) it provided verifications before the hearing on this motion and the requests therefore must not be deemed admitted; (2) Plaintiff’s counsel breached a duty of civility to apply the most reasonable means of obtaining Defendant’s discovery verifications; (3) sanctions against Defendant and/or its counsel are inappropriate, and Plaintiff’s sanctions request is inflated, vague, and improper; and (4) Plaintiff’s counsel should be ordered to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for breach of this Court’s guidelines of civility in litigation.

Tertiary Arguments

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff refused to initiate correspondence to Defendant’s counsel regarding the missing verifications and instead looked to the Court for what is ultimately a sanctions demand.

“Litigation is supposed to be a search for the truth.” (Rosales v. Thermex-Thermatron, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 187, 199.) A party cannot abandon “its part of the search in favor of tactics that made plaintiff’s pretrial discovery more burdensome.” (Id.) Attorneys that “fail to extend common courtesies to their opposition” can be sanctioned. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 487.) The Los Angeles Superior Court Guidelines for Civility in Litigation states that “[b]efore filing a motion, counsel should engage in more than a mere pro forma discussion of its purpose in an effort to resolve the issue.” (Shugart Decl, Exhibit D at Appendix 3.A., subdivision (h)(1).) In the context of a motion to deem requests for admissions as admitted “there is no meet and confer obligation at all.” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 777.) “The propounding party need give no warning . . . it simply files a motion to deem the matters covered by the requests admitted.” (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395.)

The Court does not find Defendant’s argument persuasive. The Court will not sanction Plaintiff for his failure to meet and confer before filing his motion and the Court will not deny his motion on such basis. As St. Mary holds, there is no meet and confer requirement with respect to a motion to deem requests for admission as admitted.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

The Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s evidentiary objections numbers 1 and 2 to the evidence submitted in connection with Plaintiff’s reply brief.

DISCUSSION

Where requests for admission are propounded on a party and that party fails to serve a timely response that party waives any objection to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a).) California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2033.280(b) provides that “[t]he requesting 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.” Nevertheless, if a “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” then the court cannot 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(b)-(c).) “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated [a] motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) “[U]nsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Allen-Pacific, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1551.) The court “must grant a motion to have admission requests deemed admitted where responses have not been served prior to the hearing or, if such responses were served, they were not in substantial compliance.” (Id.) “The party to whom the requests for admission are directed shall sign the response under oath, unless the response contains only objections.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.240(a).)

Declaration of Plaintiff’s Counsel

Plaintiff’s counsel, Daniel Inscore (“Inscore”), declares that: (1) on July 30, 2019, Plaintiff served Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One on Defendant (Inscore Decl. at ¶ 2 and Exhibit 2); (2) Plaintiff agreed to four extensions for Defendant to respond to written discovery (Id. at ¶¶ 3-6); (3) on October 15, 2019, Defendant served unverified responses (Id. at ¶ 7 and Exhibit 3; (4) Defendant has not served timely verified responses which amounts to no response at all (Id. at ¶ 9); (5) due to Defendant’s failure to respond, Plaintiff has incurred and will incur reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees for bringing this motion in the amount of $4,186.44 which includes $4,000.00 for attorneys’ fees, $126.44 for mileage, and a motion fee of $60.00 (Id. at ¶ 10); (6) his hourly billing rate is $400.00 per hour and he spent 4 hours drafting the moving papers (Id. at ¶ 10); (7) based on his experience he will spend 6 hours of additional time to prepare the reply on this motion, prepare for oral argument, and attend the hearing (Id.); and (8) he estimates the total fees incurred will be $4,000.00. (Id.)

Declaration of Defendant’s Counsel

Defendant’s counsel, Jonathan M. Shugart declares that: (1) when he learned of Plaintiff’s motion he realized that he inadvertently failed to send the verifications that Defendant provided him (Shugart Decl. at ¶ 8); and (2) he provided the verifications to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Id. at ¶ 12 and Exhibit C.)

Analysis

Due to Defendant’s serving responses before the hearing date on this motion which are in substantial compliance pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2033.220, the Court cannot make an order deeming the requests admitted and will only rule on the request for monetary sanctions.

The Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the reasonable amount of $1,200.00 which represents 3 hours of work on Plaintiff’s motion. Sanctions are to be paid by Defendant and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, to Plaintiff within 20 days of the date of this order. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.)

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 10th day of March 2020

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court