First Technology Federal Credit Union vs. Sean Phi Hung Nguyen

34-2022-00328443-CL-CL-GDS: First Technology Federal Credit Union vs. Sean Phi Hung Nguyen 10/28/2025 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted in Department 53

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff First Technology Federal Credit Union’s motion to deem matters admitted and to compel “responses to other written discovery” is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff moves for an order deeming its requests for admissions admitted and also an order compelling Defendant Sean Phi Hung Nguyen’s responses to form interrogatories. According to Plaintiff, Defendant never responded to the discovery.

Motion to Deem Matters Admitted

The motion to deem the requests for admission admitted is denied.

A party may avoid having matters in requests deemed admitted if they serve, “before the hearing on the motion,” proposed responses to the subject request for admissions, that are in substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220. (CCP § 2033.280(c).). As seen from Defendant’s opposition, Defendant served verified responses to the requests for admission on October 1, 2025. (Nguyen Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Exhs. A, B.) The responses contain objections which have been waived pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(a). However, subject to the objections, Defendant either denied the request for admission or stated that after a reasonable inquiry the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to allow Defendant to admit the matter.

These are permissible responses pursuant to CCP § 2033.220. The fact that the responses may include objections does not preclude a finding that the responses are in substantial compliance. (Katayama v. Continental Investment Group (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 898.) Indeed, if the answers alone are sufficient without the objections, and the objections do not “negate the complete and straightforward nature of the answers,” then the proposed responses substantially comply with CCP § 2033.220. (Id. at 908.)

Such is the case here. To the extent Plaintiff has issues with the content of the responses, Plaintiff’s remedy is a motion to compel further responses following a meet-and-confer effort.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with the motion to deem matters admitted is denied as the notice failed to comply with CCP § 2023.040 which requires that “[a] request for sanctions shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and

34-2022-00328443-CL-CL-GDS: First Technology Federal Credit Union vs. Sean Phi Hung Nguyen 10/28/2025 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted in Department 53

attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” (CCP § 2023.040.) The notice of motion simply indicates that “[t]he request for sanctions is made pursuant to [CCP] §§ 2023.00, 2023.030, and 2023.040.” (Not. 2:110-11.) Defendant failed to identify any person, party, or attorney against who sanctions were sought in the notice of motion or the type of sanction sought.

Motion to compel

The motion to compel Defendant’s responses to form interrogatories is granted.

Defendant’s opposition only addressed the requests for admission. A party’s failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)

No later than November 18, 2025, Defendant shall serve verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories (set one).

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with the motion to compel is denied as the notice failed to comply with CCP § 2023.040 which requires that “[a] request for sanctions shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” (CCP § 2023.040.) The notice of motion simply indicates that “[t]he request for sanctions is made pursuant to [CCP] §§ 2023.00, 2023.030, and 2023.040.” (Not. 2:110-11.) Defendant failed to identify any person, party, or attorney against who sanctions were sought in the notice of motion or the type of sanction sought.

The Court notes this motion seeks multiple forms of relief regarding separate types of written discovery (requests for admission and interrogatories) in violation of Sacramento Superior Court Local Rules. Local Rule 2.31(E), effective July 1, 2024, prior to the date the instant motion was filed, states, “[w]hen simultaneously filing multiple discoveryrelated motions in the same case with the same hearing date, each motion shall be filed as a separate document and a separate filing fee paid for each.

Parties may not combine motions pertaining to different types of discovery within the same document. Failure to comply with any part of this rule regarding discovery motions may, in the discretion of the court, be grounds for the motions being dropped without consideration.' (Local Rule 2.31(E) [emphasis added].) The Court in its discretion has considered the motion. However, the parties are cautioned that failure to comply with Local Rule 2.31(E) in the future may result in the motion being dropped without prejudice.

The notice of motion includes the incorrect address for the Court. The correct address

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00328443-CL-CL-GDS: First Technology Federal Credit Union vs. Sean Phi Hung Nguyen 10/28/2025 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted in Department 53

for Department 53 of the Sacramento Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento, California 95814. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to notify Defendant immediately of the correct address for Department 53.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.