Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 20STCV18357, Date: 2022-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV18357    Hearing Date: November 14, 2022    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Bankuthy, et. al. vs. Millennium House Inc., et. al., Case No. 20STCV18357

Tentative Ruling re:  Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Request for Sanctions

Plaintiff Michael Bankuthy (Plaintiff) seeks to compel Defendant Knacio Moore’s (Defendant) further responses to the Request for Admissions (Set One), and to Form Interrogatory 17.1 in the Form Interrogatories (Set Two). The motion is granted as to Request Nos. 9 and 37-40, and denied as to the remaining Requests. The motion is granted as to Form Interrogatory 17.1. Monetary sanctions are denied.

A party may move for an order compelling further response to a request for admission or request for production of documents if the demanding party deems that responses are incomplete, evasive, or contain meritless objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (a); 2033.290, subd. (a).) 

“For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [Citation]. Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

Plaintiff served the Requests for Admission (Set One) on Defendant on June 30, 2022, consisting of 219 Requests. (Rickets RFA Decl. (“Rickets Decl.”), Ex. A.) Plaintiff also served on Defendant the Form Interrogatories (Set Two), which consisted only of one interrogatory (No. 17.1) seeking the facts, witnesses, and documents upon which Defendant based any response that was not an unqualified admission. (Rickets Interrogatory Decl., Ex. A.)

Defendant served responses on July 29, 2022. (Rickets Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. B.) Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s further responses to Request Nos. 4-9, 22, 23, 30, 37-40, and 47-219.

Request Nos. 4 and 9

            Request No. 4 asked Defendant to “[a]dmit that, between August 1, 2018 and September 30, 2019, Millennium House’s business obtained funds in part by requiring disabled residents to pay $800 in cash per month for room and board.” Defendant objected to the request as compound and overbroad, and admitted that some indigent residents paid for room and board with disability benefits. Request No. 9 similarly asked Defendant to admit that Millennium House obtained funds during that time period “by requiring indigent residents who were not receiving disability payments to sign up for County General Relief funds and food stamps, and to transfer those benefits to Millennium House as payment for room and board.” Defendant again objected to this request as compound and overbroad, and admitted that some indigent residents paid for room and board with general relief funds and food stamps.

“No request for admission shall contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive request.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.060, subd. (f).) The Court agrees with Defendant that Request No. 4 is compound, because it implicates whether Millennium House imposed that requirement on disabled residents, the amount charged, and whether the amount was paid in cash. The Court disagrees that Request No. 9 is compound. Furthermore, Defendant’s response is incomplete because it admits only that indigent residents paid for room and board with benefits, but does not admit or deny whether Millennium House required residents who were not receiving disability benefits to sign up for and then transfer those benefits. Accordingly, the motion is denied as to Request No. 4 and granted as to Request No. 9.

Request Nos. 5-8, 22-23, and 30

            For Request Nos. 5-8, 22-23, and 30, Defendant responded that he “lacks sufficient information to admit or deny this Request,” and that “[a] reasonable inquiry concerning the matter has been made, and the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable [Defendant] to admit or deny the matter.” These responses are proper under Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220, subd. (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.” Accordingly, the motion is denied as to Request Nos. 5-8, 22-23, and 30.

Request Nos. 37-40

            Request Nos. 37-39 asked Defendant to admit that he reported Adrian Santiago to the Court as noncompliant for having a cell phone, and admit that Santiago was subsequently arrested and removed from Millennium House. Request No. 40 asked Defendant to “[a]dmit that after you reported to the Court that Paul Angel Ramos was noncompliant, he was ordered to complete additional time in the Millennium House program.” Defendant objected based on relevance. While Defendant argues in the Opposition that these Requests violate the privacy rights of the non-parties, Defendant’s responses did not assert that objection. The Court finds that these requests are relevant for purposes of discovery. The motion is therefore granted as to Request Nos. 37-40.

Request Nos. 46-219

            Defendant declined to answer Request Nos. 46-219, and objected to each as burdensome and harassing.

The trial court “shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020, subd. (a).) “An ‘objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required.’” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549.)

As a matter of right, a party is entitled to request, at most, the admission of 35 matters that do not relate to the genuineness of documents. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.030, subd. (a).) A receiving party need only respond to the first 35 admission requests served unless a declaration as described in Section 2033.050 is attached to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.030, subd. (b).) “The number of requests for admission of the genuineness of documents is not limited except as justice requires to protect the responding party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.030, subd. (c).)

The Court agrees with Defendant that the number of requests served is unduly burdensome.

            In sum, the Court grants the motion as to Request Nos. 9 and 37-40, and denies the motion as to the remaining Requests. Because the motion is granted as to some Requests, the motion is also granted as to Form Interrogatory 17.1 to the extent that any of Defendant’s responses to those Requests are not an unqualified admission.

Under Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (d), “[t]he Court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response” to requests for admission, unless the sanctioned party acted with substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff requests an award of monetary sanctions against Defendant. Because the motion is denied in part and granted in part, the Court declines to award sanctions.