Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCV22613, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV22613    Hearing Date: October 26, 2022    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Niagara Bottling, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions and Requests for Production from Defendant Leon Farahnik is GRANTED as to Requests for Admission No. 18 and 21, and DENIED as to Requests for Production No. 35 and 36.

I.       MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER

“A propounding party may demand a responding party to produce documents that are in their possession, custody or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) A party may likewise conduct discovery by propounding interrogatories to another party to be answered under oath. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010, subd. (a).) The responding party must respond to the production demand either by complying, by representing that the party lacks the ability to comply, or by objecting to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) The responding party must respond to the interrogatories by answering or objecting. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) If the responding party fails to serve timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to the production demand and interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

A motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions may be made on the grounds that an answer is incomplete or evasive, or an objection is without merit. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290, subd. (a)(1)–(2).)

Plaintiff Niagara Bottling, LLC (Plaintiff) seeks further responses to Requests for Admission No. 18 and 21 and Requests for Production No. 35 and 36 from Defendant Leon Farahnik. Requests for Admission No. 18 and 21 ask Defendant respectively to admit that he failed to make any payments due under the loan despite receiving demand for payment, and that he agreed to guaranty the obligations of nonparty Carbonlite to Plaintiff. (Separate Statement at pp. 2–4.) Defendant responded with objections, denying that he owed anything “under the loan,” as opposed to the personal guaranty, and further arguing that the request to admit that he guaranteed “the obligations” of Carbonlite included no specificity or limitations as to the obligations in question. (Separate Statement at pp. 2–3.)

Further responses are required as to these requests for admission. Responses to such requests must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220, subd. (a).) Responses must also “[a]dmit 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,” and “[d]eny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220, subd. (b)(1), (2).)

Defendant’s responses here are not compliant with statute. Request No. 18 specifically asks for an admission that Plaintiff failed to make payments due under the loan, with “loan” specifically defined to include Carbonlite’s obligation and Defendant’s own guarantee. Defendant’s response that he owed no obligations under the “loan” is evasive and non-responsive. Likewise, Defendant’s response to Request No. 21 failed to admit or deny any portion of the request, which asked merely whether Defendant had guaranteed Carbonlite’s obligations to Plaintiff. Defendant’s responses are not complete and straightforward, and further responses are required.

Requests for Production No. 35 and 36 asked Defendant to produce documents relating to transfers of Defendant’s property from September 2020 to the present, and to produce documents relating to the people who benefitted from any such transfer. (Separate Statement at pp. 4–6.) In original and supplemental responses, Defendant offered objections, coupled with a statement of compliance, and included a reference to particular Bates-stamped documents as responsive. (Ibid.) Plaintiff in this motion argues that Defendant’s document production has revealed the existence of responsive documents which were not produced, including documents related to Defendant’s transfer of his interest in another company, and documents evidencing the contact information for the persons who benefitted from another property transfer. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff’s motion as to these requests concerns defects with the document production actually made pursuant to Defendant’s statements of compliance. However, Plaintiff has not produced evidence concerning the probable existence of additional responsive documents in Defendant’s possession, which he has failed to turn over. Although Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not turned over certain responsive documents, there is no evidence that this is so, apart from the arguments in Plaintiff’s moving papers. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to Requests for Production No. 35 and 36.

The motion is therefore GRANTED as to Requests for Admission No. 18 and 21, and DENIED as to Requests for Production No. 35 and 36.