Sandra K. Neal, et al. v. U.C.L.A. Health Systems, et al.

Additionally, a pro rata fee reduction is warranted because Defendants filed the motion without the necessary supporting documentation, requiring additional briefing and additional Court resources. It is not merely that Fenton filed the motion without full records, it is that the evidence provided on the initial motion was egregiously inadequate--it provided no breakdown of attorneys' time at all, making it impossible for the Court to evaluate the reasonableness of the time Defendants' attorneys spent on this matter. Therefore, the Court reduces Defendants' fees an additional 20%.

Conclusion

Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is GRANTED. Defendants are awarded $132,544.00 ($177,690 - $12,010 = $165,680 - ($165,680 x.20) = $132,544.00)

Sandra K. Neal, et al. v. U.C.L.A. Health Systems, et al., Case No. 24SMCV 05811 Defendant's Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted Hearing Date: September 10, 2026

Background

Plaintiff s Sandra K. Neal and Don Ford sue Defendants U.C.L.A. Health System; U.C.L.A. Santa Monica Hospital, Christian Alfar, and the State of California for negligence, medical malpractice, and premises liability. Plaintiffs allege that Neal was injured when Defendants negligently transported her from the hospital to a car and failed to assist her when she was getting into the car, causing her to fall and break her femur. (Complaint, P. 15.)

On November 27, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the complaint. On March 30, 2026, Defendants Christian Alfaro and the Regents of the University of California (for the purposes of this motion, "Defendants") filed this Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted. As of September 7, 2026, the Court has not received opposition.

Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted

"Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties."¿ (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.010.)¿

"Within 30 days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared . . . . "¿ (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.250(a).)

If a party to whom request for admissions are served fails to provide a timely response, the party to whom the request was directed waives any objections, including based on privilege or the work product doctrine. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(a).)

The requesting party can move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(b).)

The court shall issue this order unless the party to whom the request was made serves a response in substantial compliance prior to the hearing on the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(c).)

Here, Defendants served the Requests for Admission, Set One, on Neal on August 21, 2025. (Tomlinson Declaration, P. 3.) On September 22, 2025, Defendants requested full and complete responses without objections by October 7, 2025. (Id. at P. 6.) The parties ultimately extended the response deadline to February 17, 2026. (Id. at P. 12.) As of the filing of this motion, Neal has not responded. (Id. at P. 13.) Neal has not filed an opposition indicating that that he has produced responsive discovery since this motion was filed.

The Court GRANTS Defendants ' motion to deem RFAs admitted.

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory against the party, the attorney, or both whose failure to serve a timely response to the request necessitated the motion to deem request for admissions as admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(c); see also Cal. Rules of Court R. 3.1348(a) [the court can award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party seeking to compel discovery even though no opposition was filed, the opposition was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed].)

Defendants request attorneys' fees and the $60.00 filing fee for this motion as sanctions. Defendants ' counsel bills it at a rate of $2 55 per hour. (Tomlinson Decl., P. 14.) Counsel's rate is reasonable. Defendants' Counsel spent three hours preparing this motion and requests another three and a half hours for drafting a reply and attending the hearing. Three hours for preparing this motion is reasonable. Three hours to draft the motion is reasonable, but there was no opposition and no reply, so the Court awards three hours for the motion and one for attending the hearing. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants $ 1, 080 ($2 55 x 4 + $60) in sanctions.

Conclusion

Defendants' Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted is GRANTED. Defendants are awarded $ 1, 080 in sanctions.

Case Number: 24SMCV06116 Hearing Date: September 10, 2026 Dept: P Tentative Ruling

Jeffery David Horn v. Petros Andakyan, Case No. 24SMCV06116 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Petros Andakyan 's Deposition Hearing Date: September 10, 2026

Background

This is a motor vehicle negligence case. On December 16, 2024, Plaintiffs Jefferey David Horn and Jonathan Paul Sparrman sued Defendants Petros Andakyan and Margarita Andakyan for damages arising from a car accident on February 2, 2023.

On April 23, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Petros Andakyan's deposition. On April 28, 2026, the Court granted an ex parte application to shorten time to hear the motion. On May 18, 2026, Petros Andakyan filed a stipulation to his liability, and Plaintiffs took the motion to compel off calendar.

On July 22, 2026, Defendants filed a Motion for an Mandatory Settlement Conference order. On August 3, 2026, instead of advancing the hearing on Defendants' motion, the Court referred the parties to a low-cost court mediation program.

On August 6, 2026, Plaintiff moved to Compel Petros Andakyan's deposition again. On August 18, 2026, the Court advanced the hearing. On August 27, 2026, Defendant filed opposition. On August 31, 2026, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Motion to Compel Deposition

If a party to an action is served with a deposition notice and fails to appear or proceed, the noticing party may move for an order compelling the deponent's testimony and the production of any documents described in the deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2025.450(a).)

The Discovery Act confers upon litigants the right to take depositions without prior court order or approval and, accordingly, with an exception not here applicable, does not require any showing of good cause for the taking of depositions." (Kramer v. Superior Ct. Of Los Angeles Cnty. (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 753, 755.)

A deponent may be examined "regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the examining party or to the claim or defense of any other party." (Id. at 756.)

"A Motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following: The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. . ." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2025.450(b).)

"If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 . . . in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is