Case Number: 21TRCV00404    Hearing Date: May 4, 2023    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                                                                                           Thursday, May 4, 2023   

Department B                                                                                                                            Calendar No. 6

PROCEEDINGS

Beth D. Corriea v. Broadway Manor, et al.   

21TRCV00404

1.      Beth D. Corriea’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, From Broadway Manor

2.      Beth D. Corriea’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, From Broadway Manor Homeowners Association   

TENTATIVE RULING

            Beth D. Corriea’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, are denied.

Background

            Plaintiff filed the Complaint on June 1, 2021. Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint on July 23, 2021. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff suffers from a disability related to long term COVID, and she requires the installation of central air conditioning. Defendants have improperly denied her request to install central air conditioning. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: 1. Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; 2. Disability Discrimination – Refusal to Permit Reasonable Modification To Housing Unit – in Violation of FEHA; 3. Disability Discrimination – Refusal To Permit Reasonable Accommodation In Housing – in Violation of FEHA; 4. Violation of the California Unruh Act; 5. Harassment in Violation of FEHA; 6. Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress; 7. Breach of Contract; 8. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; 9. Declaratory Relief; 10. Injunctive Relief.

            Motions to Compel Further Responses Form Interrogatories

            Where responses to interrogatories have been served but the requesting party believes that they are deficient because the answers are evasive or incomplete, or, because an objection is without merit, that party may move for an order compelling a further response.  CCP § 2030.300(a).  Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days after service of verified responses in question, or any verified supplemental responses.  CCP § 2030.300(c).  The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration in compliance with CCP § 2016.040.  CCP § 2030.300(b).

            Meet and Confer

Plaintiff failed to set forth meet and confer declarations in sufficient compliance with CCP §§ 2030.300 and 2016.040. The declarations of Gregory W. Smith fail to demonstrate that Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer after the discovery responses that were served on October 7, 2022. Instead, all the purported facts regarding the meet and confer process apparently occurred prior to this date. (Declarations, Gregory W. Smith, ¶¶ 3-9).

Motions to Compel

After an IDC, Plaintiff has narrowed the motions to Defendants’ responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1 as they relate to Requests for Admission 3-12, 29, 30, 33 and 35. As noted above, the failure to provide declarations which demonstrate sufficient compliance with CCP §§ 2030.300 and 2016.040 may have been a sufficient ground to deny the motions outright. The Court does note, however, that the parties conducted an IDC and apparently also discussed the issues thereafter which generated an agreement to narrow the motions as noted above. The Court will therefore address the merits of this motion.

As to Form Interrogatory 17.1 as it relates to Requests for Admission 3-12, 29, 30, 33 and 35, the motions are denied.

As to Form Interrogatory 17.1 as it relates to Requests for Admissions 3-12, Plaintiff argues that the responses are evasive, insufficient, and devoid of facts. Specifically, it appears that Plaintiff takes issue with the responses to sub-part (b) which asks the party to state all facts upon which the responses to the Requests for Admissions are based. A review of the responses to sub-part (b) reveals that Defendants’ responses are sufficiently fact-based. Plaintiff argues the substance of the responses and disagrees with the responses believing that the responses are evasive. Plaintiff may disagree with the substance of the responses, but this does not render the responses themselves insufficient. Defendants have stated that the responses are based on the facts as known to Defendants. Essentially, it appears that Plaintiff believes that, with the facts known to Defendants, the responses to the underlying Requests for Admissions should have been different. At this stage in the litigation, the Court is not able to dictate to a party that the facts set forth in their own discovery responses are not adequate to support a denial of the RFA. The Discovery Act has a provision that deals with the issue of a party denying a RFA which, after the conclusion of the action, shows that it should not have been denied. At this point, any such determination is much too speculative.

As to Form Interrogatory 17.1 as it relates to RFA 29, the motion is denied. The response to sub-part (b) which states that Defendants cannot authenticate the City of Redondo Beach Municipal Code is adequate in the context of the interrogatory and RFA. At first glance, Plaintiff’s argument that the text of a Municipal Code is public record appears meritorious. However, this argument is misleading because it places into question what would be the actual substantive responses that would be set forth by Defendants in sub-parts (b) to (d), at that point. Can Defendants adequately and competently set forth the “facts” upon which an admission would have been based? Who with Defendants would be “tasked” with reading the Municipal Code? Is this an issue in the litigation or would this have been the responsibility of the attorney after the commencement of the litigation? The perceived inadequacy of the response lies instead with the nature of the RFA itself. The gamesmanship complained of by Plaintiff in fact also exists with the manner in which the RFA was drafted. The motions as to Form Interrogatory 17.1 with respect to RFA 29 is denied.

As to Form Interrogatory 17.1 as it relates to RFAs 30 and 33, the motions are denied. The denial of the motions is based on a similar reasoning as RFA 29 but the denial is much more clear-cut. Here, Plaintiff is asking Defendants to theorize about aspects of compliance procedure of the City of Redondo Beach. Defendants’ responses which state that they are not authorized to set forth facts regarding procedures and issues related to City compliance matters are wholly sufficient.

As to Form Interrogatory 17.1 as it relates to RFA 35, the motions are denied. For the Court to meaningfully evaluate the responses, the Court must be able to review the responses to RFA 35 because the responses are dependent on the objections. In fact, it appears that the proper motion would have been a motion to compel a further response to the RFA itself and not to Form Interrogatory 17.1.

            Sanctions

            Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are denied.

            Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.