STEINER vs TURNER, et al.

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 08/13/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order Request Admissions be Admitted in Department 54

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.

Tentative Ruling: Defendants Brian H. Turner and The Law Office of Brian H. Turner, PC’s (“Defendants”) motion that requests for admission be deemed admitted against pro per Plaintiff Tara Steiner (“Plaintiff”), or in the alternative for an order compelling further responses, is ruled upon as follows. On November 13, 2024, Defendants served Plaintiff with Requests for Admissions, Set One. (Decl. Sullivan, ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Plaintiff failed to serve discovery responses by December 18, 2024. On December 19, 2024, Defendants’ counsel attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding her failure to respond to discovery.

Plaintiff represented that she had not received either sets of discovery served via U.S. mail and e-mail. (Decl. Sullivan, ¶ 3, Ex. B.) Defendants’ assert that Plaintiff’s claim that she did not receive discovery served on November 13, 2024, is not credible, and inform the Court that Plaintiff is returning everything served to the address on file with the Court as “return to sender.” (Decl. Sullivan, ¶ 4.) On December 20, 2024, Defendants sent Plaintiff the discovery requests a second time via email.

Plaintiff was instructed that objections had been waived and to serve responses, without objection, by January 2, 2025. (Decl. Sullivan, ¶ 5, Ex. C.) Plaintiff emailed Defendants’ counsel and stated that she was unable to open the documents. (Decl. Sullivan, ¶ 6, Ex. C.) Defense counsel sent Plaintiff the discovery requests a third time on December 31, 2024. (Decl. Sullivan, ¶ 5, Ex. D.) Defense counsel avers that the attachments were actually the same PDF documents served via email on November 13, 2024 and December 20, 2024. (Decl.

Sullivan, ¶ 6.) On January 2, 2025, Plaintiff confirmed that she was able to open the PDF documents. (Decl. Sullivan, ¶ 7.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 08/13/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order Request Admissions be Admitted in Department 54

On January 31, 2025, Plaintiff served unverified Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One. (Decl. Sullivan, ¶ 8, Ex. G.) Defendants argue that these unverified responses included evasive answers and inappropriate objections. (Decl. Sullivan, ¶ 8.) On February 13, 2025 and again on March 24, 2025, Defendants met and conferred with Plaintiff regarding her deficient responses and failure to serve verified responses. (Decl. Sullivan, ¶¶ 9-10, Exs. H,I.) Plaintiff did not provide amended responses. (Decl.

Sullivan, ¶ 11.) On April 24, 2025, Defendants filed the instant motion to deems matters admitted, or in the alternative for an order compelling further responses. Plaintiff’s Opposition is based entirely on the timing of Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff argues that the motion was filed 83 days after her responses were served. (Decl. Plaintiff, ¶15.) Plaintiff asserts that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.29 0(c), notice of a motion to compel should be given within 45 days of the service of the response, and that after the 45-day timeline, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission.

On reply, Defendants emphasize that Plaintiff’s responses were not verified. Defendants set forth that since Plaintiff’s responses were not verified, the 45-day rule was not triggered. (See, Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Ca1.App.3d 632, 636 [Unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all.]) It is undisputed that Plaintiff has not served any verified responses to requests for admission, set one. In addition, even if the Court were to believe that Defendants’ third service attempt on December 20, 2024 was the first service received by Plaintiff, her responses sent on January 31, 2025 were still untimely, and as such she has waived objections to the requests.

As a result, the Court shall make the Order deeming the requests for admission admitted, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests 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 Code of Civil Procedure §2033.220. Defendants’ request to have matters deemed admitted is GRANTED unless Plaintiff appears at hearing and shows that verified responses, without objection, that are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure §2033.220 were served prior to the hearing of this motion.

Defendants’ requested sanctions in the amount of $4,122.50 ($325/hour x 4.5 hours preparing the motion and 8 hours to draft the reply and prepare for and attend the hearing on the motion, plus the $60 filing fee.) the Court find the amount requested unreasonable. The Court awards mandatory sanctions, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 in the reduced

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 08/13/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order Request Admissions be Admitted in Department 54

amount of $1,685 ($325/hour x 5 total hours of attorney time, plus $60 filing fee.) The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.