Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 20STCV18357, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV18357    Hearing Date: December 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

Plaintiff Ryan Stegen (Stegen) seeks to compel Defendant Peter Schuster’s (Schuster) further responses to Request Nos. 53-59 in the Request for Admissions (Set Two), and to Form Interrogatory 17.1 in the Form Interrogatories (Set Two).  The motion is 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).)  A motion to compel further responses to an inspection demand “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) 

“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.)

Before bringing a motion to compel further responses to any discovery request, the moving party is required to make efforts to meet and confer in good faith and must submit a declaration attesting to those efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (b)(2), 2030.300, subd. (b), 2033.290 subd. (b).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)¿However, a discovery motion need not be denied automatically based upon the reason that the moving parties failed to meet and confer in good faith.¿(See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 434.) 

Stegen has not submitted any evidence of meet and confer efforts regarding this set of discovery.

Stegen seeks to compel Schuster’s further responses to Request Nos. 53-59 in the Request for Admissions (Set Two).

Request Nos. 53, 54

            Request No. 53 reads, “Admit that P000045 is an audio recording of a conversation you had with at least Ryan Stegen and Luke Pollock, and possibly others, while they were residents at Millennium House.”

Request No. 54 reads, “Admit that the transcript of P000045, ATTACHED TO THESE Requests for Admission as Exhibit A, contains no errors, other than the text between brackets and the unidentified speakers.”

In response to Request Nos. 53 and 54, Schuster objected on the basis that “[t]he request fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.260(d) and is not a request made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.260(g),” and also that “Responding party lacks information and knowledge as to Plaintiff’s work product.”

Plaintiff has not filed counsel’s declaration in support of this motion, and so the only information regarding the contents of the RFAs is from the Separate Statement. As a result, it is somewhat difficult to evaluate Request Nos. 53 and 54, which ask Schuster to verify an audio recording and a transcript of the audio recording attached to the RFAs (not attached to the Separate Statement). Plaintiff’s failure to attach the transcript violates Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c), which requires that a Separate Statement include, “If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it.”

Schuster also argues that he cannot be required to admit or deny the accuracy of the recording and transcript. Code Civ. Proc. 2033.010 allows a party to make “a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact,” which doesn’t  encompass either verifying an audio recording or confirming the accuracy of a transcript.

Request Nos. 55-59

Request Nos. 55-59 asked Schuster to admit that he had certain conversations with Stegen and others, and that Schuster made certain statements in those conversations. Schuster responded to each, “Responding Party is unable to admit or deny this request. A reasonable inquiry concerning the matter has been made and the information known or readily available is insufficient to enable the responding party to admit or deny the request.”

Schuster’s responses are proper pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220, subd. (c). Stegen argues that Schuster’s responses are improper because Schuster was recorded as making the subject statements in the audio recording and transcript. However, a party’s failure to admit a request for admission despite knowledge or the duty to inquire is remedied by Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.420, which allows the propounding party to recover attorney’s fees incurred in proving a matter, “[i]f a party fails to admit the genuineness of any document or the truth of any matter when requested to do so under this chapter, and if the party requesting that admission thereafter proves the genuineness of that document or the truth of that matter…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.420, subd. (a); see, e.g., Bloxham v. Saldinger (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 729, 752-54.)