Unknown v. Unknown

admitted scheduled for hearing on 9/08/26 and a motion to compel responses to SROGs, FROGs, and RPDs scheduled for hearing on 10/13/26. The Court wishes to hear the motions together, and continues the hearing on the 9/08/26 motion to 10/13/26. The Court advises Counsel to be guided by its voluminous past rulings when meeting and conferring in connection with these motions, and the Court strongly encourages the parties to resolve the issues without the need for the 10/13/26 hearing. Defendant must take the matters off calendar if the parties resolve the issues. Defendant is ordered to give notice.

1. Parties' Positions Defendant propounded RFAs on Plaintiff on 12/24/25. As of the filing of the moving papers, on 5/08/26, and despite a meet and confer letter on 5/01/26, Plaintiff had not served responses. Defendant therefore filed this motion to deem RFAs admitted. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Plaintiff's attorney declares the meet and confer efforts were insufficient and "further" responses and verifications have been served, such that the motion should be denied as moot and no sanctions imposed.

2. Initial not Further Plaintiff's opposition papers continually refer to the standards relating to motions to compel further responses to RFAs, as opposed to a motion to deem RFAs admitted. Defendant's moving papers establish Plaintiff never served any responses at all to the subject discovery. Despite Plaintiff referring to her responses as "further" responses, she does not attach the responses and her attorney does not declare that initial responses were ever served. The Court will therefore treat this motion as a motion to deem RFAs admitted, not one to compel further responses to RFAs. Notably, there is no meet and confer requirement when filing a motion to deem RFAs admitted. Plaintiff's arguments re: the insufficiency of the meet and confer process are therefore rejected.

3. Substantive Responses Plaintiff's attorney declares she served verifications and responses, such that the motion to deem RFAs admitted must be denied as moot.

4. Sanctions Defendant's notice of motion indicates Defendant seeks imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1010. Plaintiff argues sanctions should not be imposed because Plaintiff acted with good cause or substantial justification. Plaintiff cites CCP Sec.2033.290 in support of this contention. Sec.2033.290 relates, however, to motions to compel FURTHER responses to RFAs. Sec.2033.280 relates to a motion to deem RFAs admitted, and sanctions are absolutely mandatory in connection with Sec.2033.280, with no exception for good cause or substantial justification.

The Court has reviewed Defense Counsel's declaration and finds the requested $1010 both reasonable and fully supported. Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff only and not against her attorney of record. She is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through its attorney of record, in the total amount of $1010, within twenty days. Defendant is ordered to give notice. Case Number: 26LBCV00152 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: S27 1.

Background

Facts Plaintiff, Berenice Perez Hernandez filed this action against Defendants, Golden Horn Transportation, Inc., Amazon.com Services, LLC, Amazon Logistics, Inc., Velocity Trust Ltd., and Ghaith Ahmed Alhamadani for damages arising out of an automobile accident.

2. Motion to Compel Further Responses a. History of Discovery Dispute Defendant propounded RFAs on Plaintiff on 3/10/26. Plaintiff served responses on 4/27/26. Defendant sent a meet and confer letter, and Plaintiff served supplemental responses on 6/02/26. The parties then met and conferred at length, but were unable to resolve issues relating to whether the responses are sufficient. This motion was filed on 7/13/26.

b. Timeliness of Motion Plaintiff contends the motion was not timely filed and must be denied due to lack of jurisdiction to hear the dispute. CCP Sec.2033.290(c) gives a moving party 45 days after a party serves responses, "or any supplemental verified response," to the discovery. Plaintiff concedes she served verified supplemental responses, but contends these were "further" responses and not "supplemental responses," such that the time to file the motion was not extended. She argues Sec.2033.290(c)'s use of the word "supplemental" is ambiguous and more likely refers to service of responses to supplemental RFAs.

Plaintiff's position is unsupported by any authority and does not, frankly, make sense. A party can propound supplemental RFAs, but the responses are referred to as "responses to supplemental RFAs," not "supplemental responses." Supplemental responses are, by definition, responses that supplement the responses a party already served. Once a party serves verified supplemental (or further) responses to the discovery at issue, the time to file a motion to compel further responses runs from the date of service of those supplemental or further responses.