Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 22CHCV01342, Date: 2024-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 22CHCV01342    Hearing Date: November 22, 2024    Dept: F51

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Motion filed: 10/30/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Misael Jimenez (“Moving Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant White Cap Supply Holdings, LLC (“Responding Defendant”)

NOTICE: NOT OK (fails to specify which requests are at issue)

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Responding Defendant’s further responses, to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (“RFAs”), Set Two, Nos. 54–64, 66, and 68–70. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions to be issued against Responding Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $4,960.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted in part and denied in part. Responding Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs, Set Two, Nos. 64, 66, and 68–70 within 30 days. The Court declines to issue monetary sanctions.

Moving Plaintiff is reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil (particularly bookmarking declarations and exhibits). (CRC 3.1110(f)(4).) Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

BACKGROUND

This is a premises liability action in which Plaintiffs allege that on 12/16/20, Moving Plaintiff Misael Jimenez was visiting Defendants’ premises to purchase a door when an unsecured 2”x6” board fell and struck Moving Plaintiff’s head, “which caused him to suffer, among other injuries, a significant laceration to his forehead that required stitches and a traumatic brain injury.” (Compl. p. 4.)

On 12/8/22, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against two named Defendants, alleging the following causes of action: (1) General Negligence; (2) Premises Liability; and (3) Loss of Consortium (by nonmoving Plaintiff Dora Jimenez). On 1/11/23, Responding Defendant filed its answer.

On 9/5/24, Moving Plaintiff served Responding Defendant with his second set of RFAs. (Decl. of Brendan D.S. Way ¶ 1.) On 10/8/24, Responding Defendant served its responses thereto, with verifications served on 10/15/24. (Id. at ¶¶ 2–3.)

On 10/30/24, Moving Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to the subject RFAs. On 11/8/24, Responding Defendant filed its opposition. On 11/13/24, Moving Plaintiff filed his reply.

ANALYSIS

California law requires a responding party to respond to each propounded request for admission with either a substantive answer or an objection to the particular request. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2033.210, subd. (b).) Each substantive answer must: “(1)¿Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2)¿Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3)¿Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220, subd. (b).) “If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (Id. at subd. (c).)

A propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses to requests for admission if any of the following apply: “(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete; or (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290, subd. (a).)

Here, Moving Plaintiff seeks to compel Responding Defendant’s further responses to the subject RFAs, arguing that Responding Defendant’s responses are evasive and incomplete because Responding Defendant failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the matter by consulting its expert.

A.    Meet and Confer 

A motion to compel further discovery responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration stating “facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2033.290, subd. (b)(1); 2016.040.) 

Here, Moving Plaintiff’s counsel declares that on 10/8/24, 10/14/24, and 10/25/24, he sent Responding Defendant’s counsel meet-and-confer letters raising the issues discussed herein, but received no response. (Way Decl. ¶¶ 4–8.) Therefore, the Court finds that counsel has satisfied the preliminary meet and confer requirement under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (b)(1).

B.     Responding Defendant’s Responses

On 2/23/24, Moving Plaintiff submitted to a defense mental examination performed by Manuel Saint Martin, M.D., J.D. (Pl.’s Mot. 3:16–17.) “One of the components of this examination was ‘The b Test’, originally developed by Dr. Kyle Boone as a test to expose malingerers. Dr. St. Martin opined that plaintiff’s results on ‘The b Test’ were proof that Plaintiff did not suffer a brain injury.” (Id. at 3:19–21.) The RFAs at issue seek admissions regarding Dr. Boone’s conclusions published about The b Test and Dr. Saint Martin’s administration thereof. (Ex. 1 to Way Decl.)

Moving Plaintiff asserts that “Defendant’s uniform position is that ‘[r]esponding party lacks the foundation and expertise to respond to the request[s]”, despite having a provisionally disclosed expert who administered the test.” (Pl.’s Mot. 6:12–14.) Moving Plaintiff argues that these responses lack merit, and further responses should be compelled because Responding “Defendant is merely being asked to confirm elements of The b Test, confirm Plaintiff’s results and confirm that Dr. St. Martin violated the terms of the stipulation that was signed by all counsel and Dr. St. Martin.” (Id. at 7:6–8.)

Responding Defendant argues in opposition that “this subject matter is appropriate for an expert to opine on, not a party defendant.” (Def.’s Opp. 2:15–16.) “‘Dr. Kyle Boone’ has not been retained by Defendant as a consultant or expert and Defendant has no contact with her as it pertains to this case. As such, Defendant has no way of verifying or authenticating the contents or conclusions in an article purportedly published by her, an independent third-party not involved in the current action.” (Id. at 2:6–9.) Responding Defendant further argues that “Plaintiff is more than welcome to depose ‘Dr. Kyle Boone’ for her to authenticate the publishing herself and the conclusions within it. RFAs should not compel a party to authenticate a document belonging to a non-party, let alone validate or agree with expert-level conclusions or analyses found in published papers.” (3:16–19.)

On reply, Moving Plaintiff maintains that “the balance of the information is readily available from their consultant/expert’s written materials associated with the test, a web search and whether or not Dr. Saint Martin allowed his female assistant to be present during the test administration.” (Pl.’s Reply 2:19–21.) “A simple conversation by and between Defendant and Dr. St. Martin would provide Defendant with information to enable it to admit or deny these matters.” (Id. at 3:20–21.)

Here, the Court agrees with Moving Plaintiff that further responses are warranted as to RFA Nos. 64, 66, and 68–70, as they relate to Dr. Saint Martin’s administration of The b Test as part of Moving Plaintiff’s medical examination. “A party to an action may not necessarily avoid responding to a request for admission on the ground that the request calls for expert opinion and the party does not know the answer. … [S]ince requests for admissions are not limited to matters within personal knowledge of the responding party, that party has a duty to make a reasonable investigation of the facts before answering items which do not fall within his personal knowledge.” (Bloxham v. Saldinger (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 729, 751–752 [internal citations and quotations omitted].) Here, the Court agrees with Moving Plaintiff that a reasonable investigation into the matters sought by these RFAs would include an inquiry to Dr. Saint Martin. Accordingly, the Court grants Moving Plaintiff’s motion as to RFA Nos. 64, 66, and 68–70.

However, the Court also agrees with Responding Defendant that its responses to RFA Nos. 54–63 are sufficient here, as Dr. Boone has no direct relation to the instant case and Responding Defendant would therefore be unable to confirm the conclusions set forth by Dr. Boone in her publications about The b Test. Accordingly, the Court denies Moving Plaintiff’s motion as to RFA Nos. 54–63.

C.    Sanctions

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Here, Moving Plaintiff seeks to recover $4,960.00 in monetary sanctions against Responding Defendant and its counsel. As the Court finds that neither party has been completely successful in bringing or opposing the instant motion, the Court declines to issue monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted in part and denied in part. Responding Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs, Set Two, Nos. 64, 66, and 68–70 within 30 days. The Court declines to issue monetary sanctions.