Judge Jill Feeney, Case 22STCV15956 2023-03-10 Tentative Ruling

- Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admission (Set One) from Defendant El Rancho Amado, LLC and Request for Monetary Sanctions

- Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) from Defendant El Rancho Amado, LLC and Request for Monetary Sanctions.... (ADVANCED FROM 03/17/2023 AND RULED ON TODAY.)

- Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admission from Defendant Terry Motor Cars Ltd. and Request for Monetary Sanctions scheduled for today 03/10/2023 is CONTINUED TO 03/17/2023 at 1:30 p.m.

- Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories from Defendant Terry Motor Cars Ltd and Request for Monetary Sanctions scheduled for 03/17/2023 at 1:30 p.m. remains on calendar as currently scheduled.

(Motions to compel directed to Defendant El Rancho Amado, LLC are ruled upon today. - Motions to Compel directed to Defendant Terry Motor Ltd will be heard on 03/17/2023 at 1:30 p.m.)

Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows with respect to request for admission: “[e]ach request for admission shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included with a set of admission requests unless it has been approved under Chapter 17 (Commencing with Section 2033.710.” (CCP Section 2033.060(d).) The Code also provides as follows “[a]ny term specially defined in a request for admission shall be typed with all letters capitalized whenever the term appears.” (CCP Section 2033.060(e).)

This motion has been brought because Defendant contends that instead of setting forth the three definitions relevant to the RFAs once at the beginning of the RFAs, the definitions should have been set forth and repeated in every RFA.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.710 which references the creation of Judicial Council forms does not shed any light on this debate. Similarly, the Judicial Council form for RFAs (DISC-020) also does not address this topic.

Applying the rule of statutory interpretation that statutes should be harmonized when possible, the Court finds that the definitions should be included and repeated with each RFA. For this reason, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

This is essentially a piggy back motion since the issue with the responses to Interrogatory 17.1relates to the complaints about the responses to the RFAs discussed above. For this reason, Plaintiff’s motion is also denied.

The Court declines to impose sanctions here. However, that will not be the case going forward. Plaintiff might have resolved this matter as Defendant offered to let Plaintiff withdraw these requests and serve corrected requests. Since the matter could have been quickly resolved through use of the cut and paste function, it is astonishing that this issue resulted in the filing of two motions. That said, although the Court does agree with Defendant’s interpretation of the statutory provisions at issue, Defendant would not have suffered any prejudice that the Court can see if Defendant had answered this set of admissions as is. Surely, Defendant might have answered this set and told Plaintiff to correct the definition issue going forward. The only conclusion to be reached is that both sides are more interested in fighting about trivialities than moving this case forward. The Court expects Defendant to renew its offer to allow Plaintiff to withdraw these requests. The Court does not expect to see a dispute of this nature in the future.