GUSTAVO VASQUEZ VS COMMERCIAL INTERIOR ACOUSTIC INC

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

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On August 18, 2017, Plaintiff Gustavo Vasquez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Commercial Interior Acoustic Incorporated alleging motor vehicle negligence, negligent entrustment, hiring, undertaking, retention, supervision, and training, and negligence per se for an automobile collision that occurred on August 24, 2015.

On August 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amendment to his complaint renaming Doe 1 as Defendant Jonathan Edward Tate (erroneously sued as Jonathan Edwards).

On November 12, 2019, Defendants Commercial Interior Acoustic Incorporated and Jonathan Edward Tate filed a request to deem matters within Request for Admissions (Set Two) as true as against Plaintiff pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b).

Trial is set for February 25, 2020.

PARTIES’ REQUESTS

Defendants Commercial Interior Acoustic Incorporated and Jonathan Edward Tate (“Defendants”) ask the Court to deem the matters in Request for Admissions (Set Two) to be true against Plaintiff for his failure to provide timely responses.

Defendants also ask the Court to impose $1,114 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and/or his counsel for their abuse of 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 and a motion to compel responses to interrogatories 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. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 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 July 2, 2019, Defendant Commercial Interior Acoustic Incorporated served Request for Admissions (Set Two) on Plaintiff by U.S. mail.  (Skalsky Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.)  Defendant Commercial Interior Acoustic Incorporated granted one extension, which provided a November 1, 2019 deadline for the discovery responses.  (Skalsky Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. B.)  Defendants counsel had not received the outstanding responses as of the time Brian W. Skalsky, Esq. signed his declaration on November 12, 2019.  (Ibid.)

The Court finds the motion must be granted.  Defendant Commercial Interior Acoustic Incorporated properly served the Request for Admissions (Set One) on Plaintiff, who failed to provide timely responses.  There are no facts showing that Plaintiff acted with a substantial justification or that other circumstances render the imposition of sanctions to be unjust.

Defendants’ request for $1,114 in monetary sanctions consists of 1.7 hours in preparing the moving papers, .5 hours in reviewing opposing papers, 1 hours in preparing a reply papers, and 3 hours in attending the hearing at a rate of $170 an hour, plus one $60 filing fee.  (Skalsky Decl., ¶ 6.)  The Court finds this amount to be unreasonable.  No opposing or reply papers were filed and Defendants’ counsel’s office is nearby the Spring Street Courthouse in Downtown Los Angeles.

The Court notes that the sanctions cannot be awarded to Defendant Jonathan Edward Tate.  Defendant Commercial Interior Acoustic Incorporated propounded Request for Admissions (Set Two), not Defendant Jonathan Edward Tate.  As such, Defendant Jonathan Edward Tate may not receive the benefit of sanctions arising from Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant Commercial Interior Acoustic Incorporated’s Request for Admissions (Set Two).

The motion is GRANTED.

The Court deems the matters within Defendant Commercial Interior Acoustic Incorporated’s Request for Admissions (Set Two) to be deemed admitted as against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff and his counsel of record are ordered to pay $570 to Defendant Commercial Interior Acoustic Incorporated within 30 days of this ruling.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.