HIMLEY vs SAMAAN

23CV009868: HIMLEY vs SAMAAN 06/06/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Defendant Nabil Samaan’s (“Defendant”) motion titled “motion to compel responses to request for admissions, set one” is DENIED.

The Notice of Motion provides the incorrect address for the Court. The correct address for Department 54 of the Sacramento County Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento, California 95814.

Defendant served on Plaintiff via mail on December 26, 2023. (Obregon Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff failed to serve timely responses. (Obregon Decl., ¶ 3.) However, on February 9, 2024, in response to a meet and confer email from Defendant’s counsel, Plaintiff served responses. (Obregon Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, Exh. B.) Plaintiff served amended responses on March 15, 2024. (Obregon Decl., ¶ 11, Exh. E.)

The exact nature of Defendant’s motion is difficult to decipher. Defendant’s notice of motion indicates that he is seeking “an order compelling Plaintiff Dirk Himley, to serve on a response to the Defendant’s Request for Admissions, Set One which he served on Defendant on December 26, 2023 and will further move this court for an order requiring Defendant, to pay a monetary sanction to Plaintiff and deem admitted non-responsive admissions.” (Notice of Motion, pp. 1:27-2:2.) The Court assumes Defendant meant he seeks an order requiring Plaintiff to pay a sanction to Defendant.

The notice of motion does not identify the statute under which Defendant brings this motion. Defendant’s memorandum refers Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 (motion to deem matters admitted) but also argues that Plaintiff’s responses/amended responses are deficient and a further response is warranted, which suggests a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290 (motion to compel further responses). These are two distinct types of motions and cannot be combined in the manner Defendant seemingly attempts to do.

The Court construes this motion as solely a motion to deem matters admitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280. While Defendant at times argues that Plaintiff’s responses are substantively deficient, Defendant has failed to submit a separate statement as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a). Nor has Defendant submitted anything that could be construed as a concise outline of the defective responses. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290(b)(2).)

Accordingly, to the extent Defendant moves to compel further responses the motion is DENIED. Further, to the extent Defendant moves for an order deeming matters admitted, the motion is also DENIED. Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(c) provides, in part: “The court shall make this order [deeming matters 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.” Here,

23CV009868: HIMLEY vs SAMAAN 06/06/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions in Department 54

Defendant’s moving papers establish that Plaintiff served responses and amended responses before this motion was filed. (See Obregon Decl., Exhs. B and E.) Defendant has not shown that these responses do not substantially comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. To the extent Defendant identifies individual responses that are purportedly deficient, such a “piecemeal approach” to determining whether late responses constitute substantial compliance within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(c) has been rejected. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779-780.)

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is also DENIED. Although monetary sanctions are mandatory in relation to a motion to deem matters admitted regardless of whether the responding party serves a substantially compliant response before the hearing (see Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c)), the evidence before the Court establishes that Plaintiff served his tardy responses before the motion was even filed. Thus, Plaintiff’s failure to serve a timely response did not necessitate this motion.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV009868: HIMLEY vs SAMAAN 06/06/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions in Department 54

COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

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.