Case Number: BC678400 Hearing Date: October 31, 2019 Dept: 61

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Leila Afifi’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission from Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant USC Investments, LLC is GRANTED as to Requests No. 27–34, 42–44, 60, 62, and 63. Sanctions are awarded against USCI and its counsel in the amount of $1,661.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

“On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response,” if they contend the response is incomplete or that an objection is without merit. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290, subd. (a).)

Afifi seeks further responses to Requests No. 27–34, 42–44, 60, 62, and 63, which concerned conditions on the property regarding the number of dogs and their noise. USCI responded that it did not reside on the property and lacked sufficient information to answer. (See Separate Statement.)

USCI argues that Afifi failed to adequately meet and confer before filing this motion. (Opposition at p. 2.) That effort consisted of the sending of one letter to USCI, following a return letter from USCI. (Afifi Decl. Exh. 3.) The letters explain Afifi’s attitude toward USCI’s objections and USCI’s rationale therefore. The court regards this exchange of letters as sufficient prelude to this motion.

USCI argues that in responding to the requests it would only be obtaining information from the actual resident on the property Patrcia Hartunian, who has already served discovery in this matter. (Opposition at pp. 4–5.)

USCI’s argument is without merit. Afifi may obtain admissions or denials from a party regarding matters already submitted to another, by virtue of the peculiar function that admissions are designed to serve.

Most of the other discovery procedures are aimed primarily at assisting counsel to prepare for trial. Requests for admissions, on the other hand, are primarily aimed at setting at rest a triable issue so that it will not have to be tried. Thus, such requests, in a most definite manner, are aimed at expediting the trial. For this reason, the fact that the request is for the admission of a controversial matter, or one involving complex facts, or calls for an opinion, is of no moment. If the litigant is able to make the admission, the time for making it is during discovery procedures, and not at the trial. Likewise, the fact that one party has unilaterally bound himself, via deposition, does not excuse the other party from being required to make an admission regarding the same facts. The issue is not disposed of until both parties are heard from.

(Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429, italics added.) Thus the fact that Hartunian has in other requests or interrogatories provided similar information is of little import. Afifi is entitled to responses from the LLC.

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Further is GRANTED as to Requests for Admission No. 27–34, 42–44, 60, 62, and 63.

SANCTIONS

Statute provides that the court shall impose sanctions upon a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further discovery responses, absent substantial justification otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300, subd. (d); 2031.310, subd. (h); 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Afifi asks for $6,138.50 in sanctions, representing 8.5 hours of work at $715 per hour, plus a filing fee of $61.00. (Afifi Decl. ¶ 7.) The court awards sanctions against USCI and its counsel in the amount of $1,661, consisting of four hours at $400 an hour, as well as the filing fee.