Matter of Leroy P Price and Lorraine E Price Family Trust

Case Number

22PR00106

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Thu, 08/08/2024 - 09:00

Nature of Proceedings

1) Mtn for an Order That Trustee's 1st Set of RFA's are Deemed Admitted by Pet; Sanc; 2) Mtn to Compel: Resp to 1st Set of Form Roggs; Sanc; 3) Mtn to Compel: 1st Set of Req for Prod; Sanc; 4) Mtn to Compel: Resp to 1st Set of Spec Roggs; Sanc; 5) Instruc

Tentative Ruling

Appearances are required to update the court.

On March 13, 2024, Respondent Thomas L. Price, Successor Trustee, served Form Interrogatories (Set 1), Requests for Production (Set 1), and Requests for Admissions (Set 1), upon Petitioner Nicole E. Fujiwara. On March 25, Respondent served Special Interrogatories (Set 1), upon petitioner. Respondent granted petitioner an extension of time to respond to May 3, 2024.

When no responses to the discovery had been received by May 3, Respondent filed the current motions to compel responses to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production, as well as a motion for deemed admissions, setting the hearings for all four motions on August 8, 2024. Each motion sought sanctions against Petitioner in the amount of $375, representing ½ hours of attorney time.

The Court has been provided no information with respect to the status of the motions to compel responses to the Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, and neither party has mentioned them in any further filings related to the August 8 hearing date. 

However, Petitioner filed an opposition solely to the motion for deemed admissions on August 1, 2024, in which she contended that, after she was able to retain replacement counsel, she served substantially compliant responses to the Requests for Admissions on August 1.

Respondent objects that the opposition was filed late, and requests that it be disregarded by the court. Respondent further asserts that sanctions are mandatory when the responding party’s failure to serve a timely responses necessitated the filing of the deemed admissions motion, citing Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280. Respondent also contends that the responses which were served were not code-compliant for several reasons, including that: (a) they contained objections, which had been waived by the failure to timely respond; and (b) for those responses for which she responded that she lacked sufficient information to admit or deny the request (Nos. 4-8, 10-12, 17, 19, 21-23), she failed to make the required statement under oath that she made a reasonable inquiry, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable her to admit the matter. Since the responses were not code-compliant, respondent urges that the motion for deemed admissions be granted. Respondent further requests an additional 1.5 hours in sanctions ($1,125.00), for a total of $1,500.00 for this motion.

Just as with other discovery, when responses to requests for admissions are not timely served, all objections are waived. A party may seek relief from the waiver before the court orders the matters specified in the requests deemed admitted, if the failure to serve a timely response resulted from mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and if the party has subsequently served a response in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) If relief is not sought until after a deemed admitted order has been entered, the party may seek relief from waiver by filing a motion to withdraw or amend the deemed admission. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300.)

If responses in “substantial compliance” with Section 2033.220 are served prior to the hearing, the motion to establish admissions is defeated, and no showing of “mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect” is required. (Torbin v. Oris (1992) 3 Cal.4^th 814, 828.) In determining whether responses are in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220, the court evaluates the response “in toto,” rather than based on responses to individual requests. (St. Mary’s v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4^th 762, 779-780.)

Where objections have been waived, and no motion for relief from the waiver has been filed, the only permissible response in “substantial compliance” with Section 2033.220 is one which does not assert objections. If the party wishes to assert objections to any request, it must seek relief from the waiver. Petitioner did not do so in this case, and instead simply served responses which might otherwise have been found by the Court to have been “substantially compliant,” but also asserted objections. Since the response provided by Petitioner is not one which was legally available to her, the Court has no alternative but to grant the motion for deemed admissions.

No party has mentioned the remaining three motions to compel, or advised the Court of their status. To the extent that they are still at issue, the Court will grant the motions and will order Petitioner to provide verified responses to the Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, without objection, no later than Monday, August 19, 2024. To the extent that these motions are still at issue, the Court will further order Petitioner to pay sanctions of $1,125 to Respondent.

As Respondent noted, sanctions are mandatory when a party’s failure to respond to requests for admissions necessitates the filing of a motion. Respondent seeks, and the Court will grant, additional sanctions in the amount of $1,500.000, payable by Petitioner.