30-15-767613

Hernandez VS Angels Baseball, LP

Motion to Deem RFA’s Admitted

This is a personal injury action in which plaintiff contends that her slip and fall at Angels Stadium was caused by water seeping out from a trashcan near a concession outlet operated by non-party Aramark. Angels’ tender of the defense to Aramark was denied, thus prompting the recent filing of a cross-complaint to add Aramark as a new party.

Before the Court this day is a motion by Angels to have its first set of RFAs served on plaintiff deemed admitted. There is no opposition to the motion, and nothing from defense counsel indicating whether substantially-compliant RFA responses have been provided since the filing of the motion.

On 03/23/15, defendant caused to be served by regular mail on counsel for plaintiff a first set of RFAs (1-13). The requests are of the “quasi-doomsday” kind: not necessarily case-dispositive, but very close. The RFAs were mailed to counsel using “Suite 631” – which is the official address in the court file – but not the same suite number used by plaintiff’s counsel on subsequent filings (counsel uses “Suite 601”). Nonetheless, there is no contention that the RFAs were not received in the due course of time.

On 04/16/15, plaintiff served responses to the RFAs – a mix of denials and objections. The service did not include a verification, which defense counsel reasonably surmised to be “an innocent oversight” and raised in a series of meet-and-confer efforts. For reasons only plaintiff’s counsel knows, no verification was provided.

Requests for admissions seek to eliminate the need for proof and to set at rest triable issues so that they will not have to be tried. Stull v. Sparrow (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 860, 865. As such, RFAs are of great value in the discovery process. Although plaintiff technically responded, an unverified response is tantamount to no response at all. Melendrez v. Superior Court (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1348. Thus, assuming no verification has been provided before the hearing on this motion, this Court has no option but to grant the motion and deem RFAs 1-13 “admitted” for present purposes. See CCP §2033.280(c).

Defense counsel also seeks an award of monetary sanctions relating to the time spent bringing this motion. The award is mandatory. CCP §2033.280(c). Counsel proposes $920, based on an hourly rate of $225 and actual costs of $65. The proposal is reasonable, and granted.