Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV01683, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV01683    Hearing Date: November 19, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F-43

Date: 11-19-24

Case #24CHCV01683, Sanchez v. Parker, et al.

Trial Date: None

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING NUMBER OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

MOVING PARTY: Defendant David Parker

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Oscar Sanchez

RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendant requests that the Court

·         Issue a protective order directing that Defendant need only respond to request numbers 1 through 35 in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One

·         Impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorneys of record, Bobby Tamari and California Law Group, Inc., in the amount of $662.28, payable within 20 days of this hearing.

RULING: Protective Order is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Oscar Sanchez (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants David Parker (Defendant) and Regina Parker on May 2, 2024. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ vehicle rearended Plaintiff’s vehicle because Defendants were speeding and failed to keep proper distance. Plaintiff claims he sustained severe injuries as a result of collision. The complaint alleges causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence.

On June 29, 2024, Plaintiff propounded on Defendant Request for Admissions, Set One, which included 55 requests and a Declaration of Additional Discovery. (Declaration of Colette M. Asel [Asel Decl.], Exh. B.)

On July 3, 2024, Colette M. Asel, Defendant’s counsel of record, sent Plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter explaining why the number of requests was excessive and asking Plaintiff’s counsel to reduce the number of requests to 35. (Asel Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. E.) Asel requested Plaintiff’s counsel respond by July 11, 2024 or to call Asel to meet and confer telephonically. (Ibid.)

On July 11, 2024, counsel spoke via telephone, and Plaintiff’s counsel indicated it would not consider withdrawing any of the requests for admission. (Asel Decl., ¶ 7.) The following day, Asel sent an email summarizing the telephonic meet and confer and informed Plaintiff’s counsel she would proceed with filing a motion for a protective order. (Ibid.) After again exchanging meet and confer emails, counsel still did not come to an agreement. (Ibid.)

On July 31, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for a protective order. Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 13, 2024. Defendant filed a reply on October 17, 2024.

Meet and Confer

A motion for protective order must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration stating “facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.090, subd. (a); 2016.040.) 

Here, Defendant’s counsel declares she sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel on July 3, 2024, explaining the issues with the Request for Admission, Set One. (Asel Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. E.) Subsequently, counsel met and conferred telephonically on July 11, 2024 and July 12, 2024 but could not come to an agreement. (Ibid.) The Court finds that counsel has satisfied the meet and confer requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.090.

Summary of Arguments

Defendant argues the number of requests for admission is excessive and that Plaintiff’s declaration for additional discovery is insufficient. The declaration fails to justify why the complexity and quantity of issues in this case require 55 requests for admission. Because this is a routine auto accident case, Plaintiff cannot meet his burden of justifying the excessive number of requests for admission, especially because several of the requests are duplicative of the form interrogatories Plaintiff propounded on Defendant. The requests seek irrelevant information not related to disputed facts. Because Plaintiff has not established good cause or an explanation for the excessive requests, the Court should impose $662.28 in monetary sanctions for abuse of discovery.

In opposition, Plaintiff states he has a right to conduct discovery and that good cause exists to deny Defendant’s motion. Because it is early in the discovery process, he can use any form and amount of discovery. The Court must impose $1,600.00 in monetary sanctions because Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s motion with substantial justification.

In reply, Defendant reiterates that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of justifying the number of requests for admission. Plaintiff does not deny that this is a routine negligence case, nor does Plaintiff dispute that several of his requests are improper. Plaintiff fails to address the deficiencies in its declaration for additional discovery or explain why this case is complex enough to warrant the greater number of requests for admission. Defendant notes that Plaintiff cut and pasted a section about special interrogatories into its opposition.

ANALYSIS

Protective Order

When RFAs have been propounded, the responding party, may promptly move for a protective order. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.080, subd. (a).) “The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.080, subd. (b)(1).) 

Here, Plaintiff propounded 55 Requests for Admission on Defendant, seeking admissions about the cause of the accident, medical records, and the bounds of Defendant’s insurance policy coverage. (Asel Decl., Exh. B.)

A party may propound more than 35 requests for admission if either the additional requests relate to the genuineness of documents or the propounding party attaches a supporting declaration with the request. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.050, 2033.040, subd. (a).) “[T]he greater number [of requests must be] warranted by the complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.040, subd. (a).) The supporting declaration must “state the reasons why the complexity or the quantity of issues in the instant lawsuit warrant this number of requests for admission.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.050.) “If the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of requests for admission is unwarranted, the propounding party shall have the burden of justifying the number of requests for admission.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.040, subd. (b).) The propounding party must show good cause for the additional requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420.)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel declares “This number of requests for admission is warranted . . . because we are in the process of initial discovery and made this request in good faith.” (Asel Decl., Exh. B, at p. 7.) Defendant argues the declaration “fails to ‘state the reasons why the complexity or the quantity of issues in the instant lawsuit warrant this number of requests for admission.’” (Motion, p. 4:19-20 [quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.050.) Defendant also argues the declaration fails to provide any facts or explanation to show the greater number of requests is warranted by the complexity or quantity of the existing issues in the case. (Motion, p. 4:26-28.)

In opposition, Plaintiff discusses the purpose of discovery statutes and states the discovery statutes must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure.

The Court finds the declaration for additional discovery is insufficient and fails to provide specific facts supporting the need for excessive requests for admissions.

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s protective order and orders Plaintiff to propound requests for admission again. Plaintiff may propound up to 35 requests of his choosing.

Sanctions

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order under this section, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.420, subd. (h), 2033.080, subd. (d), 2031.060, subd. (h).) Additionally, “the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Here, Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $662.28 be imposed on Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel. Defendant’s counsel’s hourly rate is $160.17. The requested sanction amount includes: (1) 2 hours for researching and drafting this motion ($320.34); (2) 0.75 hours for reviewing the opposition and drafting the reply ($120.12); (3) 1 hour for appearing at the hearing ($160.17); and (4) $61.65 in filing fees per motion. (Asel Decl., ¶ 10.)  

In opposition, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,600.00 to be imposed on Defendant and their counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is $400.00. The requested sanctions include: (1) 2 hours to prepare the opposition ($800.00); and (2) 2 hours to appear for this motion ($800.00). (Declaration of Bobby Tamari, ¶ 13.) 

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $662.28. The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

ORDER

The Court grants Defendant’s protective order and orders the following:

1.      Plaintiff to propound requests for admissions again, up to 35 of his choosing.

2.      Defendant to respond pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 2033.250.

The Court orders Plaintiff Oscar Sanchez and his attorney of record Bobby Tamari, jointly and severally, pay Defendant David Parker, through his counsel, sanctions of $622.28 within 20 days of this Court order.