Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 20STCV18357, Date: 2022-12-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV18357    Hearing Date: December 23, 2022    Dept: 30

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 Ryan Stegen (Stegen) seeks to compel Defendant Knacio Moore’s (Moore) further responses to the Request for Admissions (Set One), Request Nos. 2, 3, 4, 14, and 16-19. The motion is granted as to Request No. 2 and denied as to the remaining requests.  Defendant Moore is ordered to answer Request No. 2 within ten (10) days of today’s date.

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

Stegen served the Requests for Admission (Set One) on Moore on June 30, 2022. (Ricketts Decl. ¶ 3.) Moore served responses on July 29, 2022. (Ricketts Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Moore later provided further responses following meet and confer efforts. (Ricketts Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. B.)

Moore objects to a number of the Requests at issue on the basis that they assume foundation facts that Moore denies. The Court agrees that this is the case for Request Nos. 3, 4, 14, 17, 18, and 19. For example, Request No. 3 – “Admit that you did not terminate Dennis James after learning that he was abusing Ryan Stegen” – assumes that Moore learned that James was abusing Stegen. Plaintiff argues that Moore may admit that he did not terminate James after hearing that James was abusing Stegen, while denying that James was in fact abusing Stegen. However, the Request uses the word “learning,” not “hearing”; “learning” suggests that the proposition learned is true.

As another example, Request 14 asks Moore to admit that he made a specific statement “upon hearing Ryan Stegen’s complaint that Dennis James was physically abusing him and that it reminded him of being abused by his father his whole life.” The request assumes that Moore heard the complaint in question, which Moore denies. Request Nos. 17 through 19 similarly assume that Moore heard complaints that he denies hearing (e.g., “Admit that after hearing Stegen’s complaint to Brand about being physically abused by Dennis James, you did not follow up with Stegen to ensure that the behavior stopped”). Accordingly, the motion is denied as to Request Nos. 3, 4, 14, 17, 18, and 19.

In contrast, Request No. 2 states – “Admit that you informed Ryan Stegen that you would take steps to stop Dennis James from abusing him” – does not assume a foundational fact. The Request concerns whether Moore made the utterance in question (i.e., that Moore would take steps to stop abuse), rather than the truth of the statement itself. The motion is therefore granted as to Request No. 2.

Request No. 16 reads, “Other than the portions of the transcript contained within the brackets and the identities of speakers that are not parties to this action, admit that there are no errors in the transcript attached to these Requests as Exhibit A.” The Court agrees with Moore that this Request is improper. 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.” These do not encompass either verifying an audio recording or confirming the accuracy of a transcript.

            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).) Because the motion is denied in part, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

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 Luke Pollack (Pollack) moves
to compel Defendant Knacio Moore’s (Moore) further responses to the Request for
Admissions (Set One), Nos. 1, 2, 14, 15, and 16. The motion is denied.

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

Pollack served the Requests for
Admission (Set One) on Moore on June 30, 2022. (Ricketts Decl. ¶ 3.) Moore
served responses on July 19, 2022. (Ricketts Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Moore served
further responses on August 26, 2022. (Ricketts Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. B.)

Request Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 15 ask
Moore to admit that a particular audio recording is a recording of a
conversation between Moore and Pollack, and ask Moore to admit that an attached
transcript of the audio recording is correct and without error. As the Court
has previously found, Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.010 does not allow a party to use
a Request to either seek admission of the genuineness of an audio recording or to
confirm the accuracy of a transcript.

            Request No.
16 reads, “Admit that in response to resident Luke Pollock’s complaints about
the conduct he claimed was criminal, you responded, ‘What you’re saying is 99%
accurate’.” Moore responded, “Responding Party lacks
sufficient information or knowledge 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.” This
response is proper under Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220, subd. (c).