TTLC SACRAMENTO - CHAMPION OAKS LLC vs ELK GROVE RESERVE, et al.

23CV002863: TTLC SACRAMENTO - CHAMPION OAKS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ELK GROVE RESERVE, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP, et al. 09/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Requests for Admissions in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff and cross-defendant TTLC Sacramento – Champion Oaks LLC’s (“TTLC Sacramento”) motion to compel defendants Elk Grover Reserve; Vatche Cabayan and Katia Cabayan, Trustees of the Vatche Cabayan & Katia Cabayan Family Trust; the Kerr Family LLC; Thomas P. Kerr, Inc.; Thomas P. Kerr; Bruce E. Bedig; BMB Investment Company; Reserve Interests & Management, Inc.; Margo K. Thelander; John L. Miller and Joyce Miller as Trustees of the 1993 Irrevocable Bedig Family Trust; and Mary Eugenia Shamouel (collectively, “Defendants”) to serve verified responses to TTLC Sacramento’s Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”) is UNOPPOSED, but DENIED.

On November 14, 2023, TTLC Sacramento served identical copies of the RFAs on each of the 11 defendants. (Declaration of Daniel J. Zarchy (“Zarchy Decl.”) ¶ 2, Ex. A.) After TTLC Sacramento granted multiple extension requests, Defendants served unverified discovery responses on January 23, 2024. (Zarchy Decl. ¶¶ 3-7.)

TTLC Sacramento requested verifications multiple times prior to this motion being filed, but Defendants did not provide verifications to the discovery responses. Accordingly, TTLC Sacramento seeks to compel Defendants to serve verified responses to the RFAs.

Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all]; Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651 [only objections are timely in unverified responses containing factual assertions and objections.].)

However, there is no statutory basis for TTLC Sacramento’s “motion to compel responses to requests for admissions.” Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 does not provide for a motion or order to respond to requests for admissions. The section provides for an order deeming the requests admitted. As noted in Weil & Brown, 'Civil Procedure Before Trial' 8:1370: “Failure to timely respond to RFAs does not result in automatic admissions. Rather, the propounder of the RFAs must move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, .” However, since this relief was not requested, the motion is denied, without prejudice to bringing a motion to deem requests for admissions admitted with associated mandatory sanctions.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or other notice is required.

23CV002863: TTLC SACRAMENTO - CHAMPION OAKS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ELK GROVE RESERVE, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP, et al. 09/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Requests for Admissions in Department 54

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-ca-gov.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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.