Judge Audra Mori, Case 20STCV06062 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Young Woo (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant CY Castro Corporation (“Defendant”) for premises liability and negligence. Plaintiff alleges she was injured by a bathroom door that struck Plaintiff as it was closing behind her.

On August 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions (“RFAs”), set one, and form interrogatories, set two, against Defendant. Defendant filed an opposition, and Plaintiff filed a reply. At the prior hearing on this matter on March 10, 2022, the parties were ordered to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) as required by the Court’s Standing Order for PI Court Procedures. Plaintiff scheduled an IDC for September 28, 2022, but there was no appearance or contact by Defendant at the IDC. Plaintiff met the requirements to have its motion to compel further responses heard.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s responses to the RFAs Nos. 1-5, 13-19, and 22-33 are deficient because they are improperly verified on information and belief, they contain meritless boilerplate objections, and the objections make it impossible to discern whether Defendant is unequivocally denying certain requests. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Defendant has adequate information to properly respond to form interrogatory No. 17.1 because Defendant has adequate information to explain why it could not admit or deny each RFA.

In opposition, Defendant provides that it has revised and provided amended responses to the subject discovery.[1] Defendant contends that its objections are appropriate and argues it should not be compelled to waive its defenses by admitting to matters that are Plaintiff’s burden to establish. Further, Defendant contends that its verifications are proper, and that the same verification language has been used with all of Defendant’s discovery responses to which Plaintiff has not objected.

In reply, Plaintiff states that Defendant has now provided adequate responses to RFAs Nos. 5, 19, and 27, but the issues concerning RFAs Nos. 1-4, 13-18, 22-26, and 28-33 and form interrogatory 17.1 remain. Plaintiff asserts that as to these responses, Defendant merely added further meritless objections. Plaintiff argues the responses and verification remain improper.

(a) On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply:

(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(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.

(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.

(c) 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.

Furthermore, CCP § 2030.300(a) provides that on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:

(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully respond to discovery. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

In this case, following Defendant’s proposed amended responses, Plaintiff asserts that RFAs Nos. 1-4, 13-18, 22-26, and 28-33 and form interrogatory 17.1 remain inadequate.

As to RFAs 1-4, Defendant objected to each of these requests. Although Defendant does not discuss or justify its objections with specificity, Defendant seems to argues generally that the RFAs are overbroad, and that it was forced to speculate as to the requested information sought by the RFAs. RFAs 1-4 request information concerning the subject door, the incident and whether there are written policies concerning inspections for the subject location. The RFAs, for example, ask Defendant to admit that “there was no warning sign on the DOOR” and “there is no written policy on inspecting the LOCATION.” Defendant, thus, fails to establish that these RFAs are vague or overbroad. Additionally, Defendant’s amended responses, on their face, are deficient. The responses do not comply with CCP § 2033.220 and indicate whether Defendant is admitting or denying each RFA.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is granted as to RFAs, set one, Nos. 1-4. Defendant is ordered to serve further responses, without objections, on Plaintiff within 20 days.

RFAs 13-18, 22-26, and 28-33 appear to address elements of Plaintiff’s claims. For example, they ask Defendant to admit that it was negligent, that it had notice of the dangerous condition of the door, and that the door was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries. Defendant asserted only objections in its original and amended responses to these requests. In its Opposition, Defendant does not discuss the purported objections, some of which are not recognized objections in the context of written discovery, with specificity. Rather, Defendant contends that it should not be compelled to waive its defenses in responding to these RFAs, and that it is Plaintiff’s burden to establish causation and damages. These RFAs are not requesting that Defendant waive any of its purported defenses; If Defendant can truthfully deny the RFAs, then this option remains open to it. Rather, these RFAs pertain to Plaintiff’s claims and the incident. Defendant is correct that at trial it is Plaintiff’s burden to establish all elements relevant to her claims. However, in meeting this burden, Plaintiff is entitled to conduct written discovery regarding the incident and Defendant’s contentions. As Plaintiff contends, “Requests for admission are not restricted to facts or documents, but apply to conclusions, opinions, and even legal questions.” (City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, LLC (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 344, 353.) As Defendant does not establish the applicability of any objection to the subject RFAs, Defendant must serve code-compliant responses the RFAs.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is granted as to RFAs, set one, Nos 13-18, 22-26, and 28-33. Defendant is ordered to serve further responses, without objections, on Plaintiff within 20 days.

Form interrogatory No. 17.1 pertains to RFAs Nos. 1-4, 13-18, 22-26, and 28-33. Given the above ruling finding Defendant’s objections to the RFAs inapplicable, on which Defendant relied in its amended responses, Defendant must serve a further response to form interrogatory 17.1. Plaintiff is ordered to serve further responses to form interrogatory, set two, No. 17.1 pertaining to the RFAs within 20 days.

Plaintiff further asserts that Defendant provided an improper verification on information and belief. Plaintiff contends Defendant should be compelled to provide a verification on personal knowledge. Defendant contends the verifications are proper because they are made on behalf of a corporate entity.

A response to requests for admission must be signed under oath by the responding party. (CCP § 2033.210(a).) “If that party is a public or private corporation, or a partnership or association or governmental agency, one of its officers or agents shall sign the response under oath on behalf of that party.” (CCP § 2033.240(b).) The purpose of the verification is to clearly set forth the facts in the response. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.) When such an officer or agent does not have personal knowledge of the particular facts, but instead is relying on records, documents, or information supplied by others in the organization, he or she should so state and indicate that based upon a review of that information, the responses are true and correct. (See Weil & Brown, Cal Prac Guide: Civ Proc Before Trial (TRG 2021), § 8:1362)

While it is appropriate for a corporate representative to sign a verification based upon information and belief, it is likewise appropriate for the representative to show a reasonable basis for that information and belief. Defendant’s verification does not do that. It does not state whether the verifying agent is relying on records, documents, or information supplied by others in the organization and indicate that based upon a review of that information, the responses are true and correct. Therefore, Defendant must provide such verifications to RFAs, set one, and form interrogatory, set two, 17.1 within 20 days.

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] To the extent that Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s separate statement filed with the motion is unnecessary, Plaintiff properly submitted the separate statement as required by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a)(1). Defendant did not file a response to Plaintiff’s separate statement, and while Defendant contends Plaintiff did not attach copies of the relevant discovery requests, Defendant does not deny the separate statement accurately reflects the requests and responses.