Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCV14952, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14952    Hearing Date: April 25, 2023    Dept: 72

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

Date:               4/25/23 (8:30 AM)                                           

Case:               Jacqueline Brown v. Jeff A. Mann (22STCV14952)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Jacqueline Brown’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Requests for Admission, Set One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Jacqueline Brown moves to compel a further response from defendant Jeff A. Mann to Requests for Admission, Set One, No. 7, which asked defendant to “[a]dmit that any claim for damages that Jacqueline Brown could have made to the county of Los Angeles concerning her December 11, 2019, trip and fall accident, is now barred because YOU failed to submit a government tort claim to the county of Los Angeles.” Defendant objected that the request called for an improper legal conclusion but “admit[ted] that a government tort claim was not submitted to the County of Los Angeles.”

Defendant maintains that a supplemental response is unnecessary because he served a supplemental response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 which stated the following facts in support of his response to Request for Admission Request No. 7: “On or about December 11, 2019, Jacqueline Brown claims to have fallen on or near the intersection of 124th Street and South Central Ave. A government tort claim filed with the County of Los Angeles is now time-barred.” (Alcumbrac Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. 4.)

Notwithstanding the response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, defendant still has an obligation to provide a code-compliant response to Request No. 7. A response to a request for admission shall: “(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.” (CCP § 2033.220(b).) Defendant’s response to Request No. 7 admits the latter portion of the request concerning defendant’s failure to submit a government tort claim to the County of Los Angeles. However, defendant’s response does not address whether any claim for damages that plaintiff could have made to the County of Los Angeles concerning her trip and fall on December 11, 2019 is now barred. Plaintiff is entitled to a response that admits so much of this former portion that is true or denies so much of this former portion that is untrue. Defendant may also state that he lacks sufficient knowledge concerning this former portion and then, pursuant to CCP § 2033.220(c) state that a reasonable inquiry has been made and the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient for defendant to admit the matter. 

Citing Bunnell v. Superior Court of Alameda County (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 720, defendant maintains that plaintiff’s response to Request No. 7 should be read in conjunction with his supplemental response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 and that the answer to Request No. 7 is equally available to plaintiff. (Bunnell, 254 Cal.App.2d at 724 [“[W]hen the material to be ‘discovered’ consists, as here, solely of information available to both parties, it defeats the purpose of the Discovery Act to compel one party to perform another party's research, whether such be laborious or not”].) Bunnell is inapposite.  That case concerned whether a party responding to interrogatories should bear the burden of reviewing trial and deposition transcripts to ascertain witnesses when the propounding party had access to the same transcripts. (Bunnell, 254 Cal.App.2d at 723-24.)

Here, plaintiff is entitled to ask defendant to admit an application of law to fact, namely, whether plaintiff’s government tort claim for damages related to the subject trip and fall is barred. (See CCP § 2033.010.) “Discovery necessarily serves the function of ‘testing the pleadings,’ i.e., enabling a party to determine what his opponent's contentions are and what facts he relies upon to support his contentions.” (Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 281.) “[W]hen a party is served with a request for admission concerning a legal question properly raised in the pleadings he cannot object simply by asserting that the request calls for a conclusion of law. He should make the admission if he is able to do so and does not in good faith intend to contest the issue at trial, thereby ‘setting at rest a triable issue.’ [Citation.] Otherwise he should set forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully admit or deny the request. [Citation.]” (Id. at 282.) Plaintiff is not charged with ascertaining how defendant would respond to a request for admission, or any portion thereof, based on available information. Only defendant can respond to requests for admission directed to him. Plaintiff may ascertain defendant’s contentions using requests for admission.

The motion is GRANTED. No later than five (5) days hereof, defendant Jeff A. Mann is ordered to serve a further verified response, without objection, to Request for Admission, Set One, No. 7 addressing the entirety of the request for admission.

With request to plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions, the Court notes that, on October 25, 2022, defense counsel sought to consult with defendant regarding plaintiff’s request for a further response to Request No. 7. (Alcumbrac Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. 5.) However, counsel for plaintiff wanted a concession from defense counsel regarding the need for a further response. Considering defense counsel’s willingness to grant an extension for plaintiff to file this motion, counsel for plaintiff should have allowed defense counsel to consult with defendant regarding how to respond to Request No. 7, especially because defendant would have to verify any supplemental response under oath. Instead of allowing defense counsel time to consult with defendant, plaintiff filed the instant motion the next day. Due to counsel for plaintiff’s haste to file this motion without allowing for a proper meet and confer, plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.