Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2022-01281344, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling
Deficiencies with the Motions
Other than the motion to compel further responses from Ullery to form interrogatories, Defendant failed to submit with any of the motions Plaintiffs' initial responses to the discovery requests at issue. (See ROA 53, 55, 57, 64, 68.) For all of the motions at issue, Defendant's separate statements also failed to include the text of Plaintiffs' initial responses and thus failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345. Rule 3.1345(c)(2) requires the separate statement to include the text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers. The separate statement is supposed to provide all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue. "The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).) Defendant's deficient separate statements required the court to expend unnecessary resources in evaluating Defendant's motions.
Form and Special Interrogatories
The motion to compel further responses from Ullery to form interrogatories (set one) nos. 2.6, 4.1, 8.2, 8.4, 8.6, and 8.7, is granted. The motion to compel further responses from Ullery to special interrogatories (set one) is granted as to nos. 68 and 75 and denied as to no. 72. The motion to compel further responses from Belmont Asset Solutions, LLC to form interrogatory (set one) no. 17.1 as it pertains to requests for admission nos. 2, 3, and 15, is granted.
Each answer in the response to an interrogatory must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) "If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (b).) Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer that supplies only a portion of the information sought is improper. It is also improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)
A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories on the grounds that the answer is evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce documents under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, and/or an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) With respect to interrogatories, the burden of showing good cause does not exist. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)
If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541 [“While the party propounding interrogatories may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.”].)
Form Interrogatories - Ullery
Defendant moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories nos. 2.6, 4.1, 8.2, 8.4, 8.6, and 8.7. Ullery's responses and further responses to these interrogatories were incomplete and evasive. (Carino Decl., Exhs. C & L [ROA 66].) To the extent the document entitled "Meet and Confer re: Plaintiffs' Further Responses to Discovery" could be construed as a further supplemental responses, they were not verified by Ullery. (Carino Decl., Exh. I.) Ullery must answer these interrogatories and all subparts. Accordingly, the motion is granted. Within 20 days of the notice of ruling, Ullery shall serve verified and Code-compliant further responses to form interrogatories nos. 2.6, 4.1, 8.2, 8.4, 8.6, and 8.7.
Special Interrogatories - Ullery
Defendant moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories nos. 68, 72, and 75.
As to no. 72, Defendant failed to provide Ullery's initial responses to the special interrogatories. (See Carino Decl., at ¶ 4 [ROA 57].) The separate statement likewise failed to include the text of Ullery's initial responses. Defendant's separate statement does not include the text for no. 72. Rather, it includes the request for no. 71. (See Sep. Stmt., at p. 3.) It appears that Ullery had provided an initial response to no. 72. (See Carino Decl., Exh. C.) Given the significant inaccuracies and deficiencies in the motion as to no. 72, the motion is denied to no. 72.
Ullery's further response to special interrogatories nos. 68 and 75 are incomplete and evasive. (Carino Decl., Exh. C.) To the extent the document entitled "Meet and Confer re: Plaintiffs' Further Responses to Discover could be construed as a further supplemental responses, they were not verified by Ullery. (Carino Decl., Exh. I.) Ullery must answer these interrogatories. Accordingly, the motion is granted as to nos. 68 and 75. Within 20 days of the notice of ruling, Ullery shall serve verified and Code-compliant further responses to special interrogatories nos. 68 and 75.
Form Interrogatories - Belmont Asset Solutions, LLC
Defendant moves to compel further responses to form interrogatory no. 17.1 as it relates to requests for admissions nos. 2, 3, and 15. Belmont Asset Solutions, LLC's further responses are mis-numbered, incomplete, and evasive. (Carino Decl., Exh. C [ROA 64].) To the extent the document entitled "Meet and Confer re: Plaintiffs' Further Responses to Discover could be construed as verified further supplemental responses, they are still incomplete and fail to answer all subparts. (Carino Decl., Exhs. I & J.) Belmont Asset Solutions, LLC must answer these form interrogatories and all subparts. Accordingly, the motion is granted as to no. 17.1. Within 20 days of the notice of ruling, Belmont Asset Solutions, LLC shall serve verified and Code-compliant further responses to form interrogatory no. 17.1 as it relates to requests for admissions nos. 2, 3, and 15.
Requests For Admissions
The motion to compel further responses from Ullery to request for admissions (set one) nos. 5 and 11 is granted.
Legal Standard
A response to a request for admission “shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (a).) A response to a request for admission must contain one of the following: an admission; a denial; or a statement claiming inability to admit or deny. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (b).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220, subdivision (c) states that “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.”
“Requests for admissions . . . are primarily aimed at setting at rest a triable issue so that it will not have to be tried”. (Chodos v. Superior Court (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 318, 323; see also Murillo v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 730, 735 [“Rather than seeking to uncover information, [requests for admissions] seek to eliminate the need for proof.”].) Where responses have been timely served but are deemed deficient by the requesting party (e.g., because of objections or evasive responses), that party may move for an order compelling a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290; see Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 618, 636.)
Merits
The further response to no. 5 contains objections. Ullery has not opposed this motion or made any argument supporting the objections. He has not met his burden to justify them. The further response to no. 11 is not Code-compliant. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (b).) The further responses to nos. 5 and 11 are also evasive. To the extent the document entitled "Meet and Confer re: Plaintiffs' Further Responses to Discovery" could be construed as a further supplemental responses, they were not verified by Ullery. (Carino Decl., Exh. I [ROA 68].) Accordingly, the motion is granted. Within 20 days of the notice of ruling, Ullery shall serve verified and Code-compliant further responses to requests for admissions nos. 5 and 11.
Requests for Production of Documents
The motion to compel further responses from Ullery to request for production of documents (set one) nos. 5, 9, 18, 23, 24, 26-29, 31, and 34-39, is denied.
The motion to compel further responses from Belmont Asset Solutions, LLC to request for production of documents (set one) nos. 8, 9, 14, and 21 is denied.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 provides, in relevant part, that “any party may obtain discovery” by “inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010, subd. (a).) Section 2031.210 requires a party responding to an inspection demand to respond with (1) a statement that it will comply, (2) a representation that it does not have the ability to comply, or (3) an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) An agreement to comply must be rather specific. If the party responds with a statement of compliance, it must specify whether production “will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) If the party responds with a representation that it does not have the ability to comply, it “shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand.” Additionally, it “shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)
On receipt of the response, the demanding party may move to compel a further response if any of the following apply: (1) a statement of compliance is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete or evasive; (3) an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery, and it must be accompanied by a separate statement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.) Absent a claim of privilege or attorney work product, the burden of showing good cause may be met by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) ¶ 8:1495.6.) “If ‘good cause’ is shown by the moving party, the burden is then on the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) ¶ 8:1496 [citing Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98].)
Ullery
Defendant moves to compel further responses from Ullery to request for production of documents (set one) nos. 5, 9, 18, 23, 24, 26-29, 31, and 34-39. The motion is denied.
As to nos. 5, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 29, Defendant argues that it is not clear if the documents will be produced in whole or part. The court does not find the responses to be unclear in this regard as the responses indicate that all documents will be produced. Therefore, the motion is denied as to these requests.
As to nos. 9, 18, 28, 31, and 34 through 39, the verified further responses were Code-compliant. (See Carino Decl., Exh. C [ROA 55].) However, Defendant argues that Ullery did not provide responsive documents that he agreed to produce. (See Sep. Stmt. [ROA 50].) If the responding party fails to permit inspection in accordance with its agreement to comply with an inspection demand, the demanding party's remedy is to file a motion compelling compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320.) In contrast, Defendant moved under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310. (See Mot., at p. 2 [ROA 54].) Therefore, the motion is denied as to these requests.
Bellmont Asset Solutions, LLC
Defendant moves to compel further responses from Belmont Asset Solutions LLC to request for production of documents (set one) nos. 8, 9, 15, and 21. The motion is denied.
Here, the verified further responses are Code-compliant. (See Carino Decl., Exh. C [ROA 53].) However, Defendant argues that it has not received a complete copy of the contract or other documents that Plaintiff specifically indicated would be produced. As discussed above, Defendant has not filed the correct motion if it is seeking compliance. (Compare Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310 and 2031.320.) Accordingly, the motion is denied.
Defendant shall give notice of the rulings.