Judge: John B. Scherling, Case: 37-2022-00028548-PR-TR-CTL, Date: 2024-01-10 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

CENTRAL COURTHOUSE TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 09, 2024

01/10/2024  02:15:00 PM  502 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:John B Scherling

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Probate  Trust Proceedings Motion Hearing (Probate) 37-2022-00028548-PR-TR-CTL IN THE MATTER OF THE RENTERIA FAMILY TRUST DATED 7/13/2001 [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 09/20/2023

Pursuant to Superior Court of San Diego County, Local Rules, rule 4.23.7, the Court's tentative ruling is as follows: The unopposed Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (ROA 108), Requests for Production, Set One (ROA 114), and Requests for Admission, Set One (ROA 121) are GRANTED. The corresponding requests for monetary sanctions against Respondent Jannette M. Bates are GRANTED in the amount requested.

The requests for sanctions pursuant to CCP § 177.5 are DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND On January 25, 2023, Kimberly M. Sagaro, aka Kimalea M. Sagaro ('Objector'), served Janette M.

Bates ('Respondent') with Form Interrogatories ('FROG'), Set One, Requests for Admission ('RFA'), Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents ('RFP'), Set One. Despite several meet and confer attempts, Respondent failed to timely respond to this discovery and on April 7, 2023, Objector filed motions for orders compelling responses to the discovery requests and for monetary sanctions. (See ROA 26, 32, 38.) On August 17, 2023, Respondent filed an untimely opposition and claimed to have served supplemental responses to all the discovery requests on the same day. (ROA 68.) The motions were initially heard on August 18, 2023, at which time the matter was continued to allow Objector to file a reply to the late opposition. (ROA 76, 80, 84, Minute Orders filed Aug. 18, 2023.) The Court ordered the parties to attempt to resolve the dispute informally, and the hearing was continued to August 25, 2023, with any reply due by August 22, 2023. (Id.) On August 22, 2023, Objector filed Notices of Withdrawal requesting to take the motions off calendar.

(ROA 86, 87, 88.) On August 24, 2023, the Court issued a tentative ruling, which was ultimately vacated as a result of the withdrawal of the motions. (ROA 90, Minute Order filed Aug. 25, 2023.) On September 20, 2023, Objector filed the instant motions to compel further responses to FROG, Set One, Nos. 12.1, 12.3, 12.4, 12.6, 17.1, and 50(a)-(f); RFP, Set One, Nos. 1-9; and RFA, Set One, Nos.

2, 5, and 6, and for $735 in monetary sanctions for each motion. (ROA 108, 114, 121.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3023230 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  IN THE MATTER OF THE RENTERIA FAMILY TRUST DATED 7/13/2001  37-2022-00028548-PR-TR-CTL On January 3, 2024, Objector filed Notices of Non-Opposition to the motions (ROA 152, 155, 158), with the supplemental declarations of counsel requesting additional sanctions pursuant to CCP § 177.5 (ROA 153, 156, 159).

On January 8, 2024, Respondent filed an untimely opposition and proof of service. (ROA 167, 168.) II. DISCUSSION A. Compliance with the Rules of Court As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the parties' electronic exhibits fail to comply with CRC 3.1100(f)(4) (which requires that unless submitted by a self-represented party, the electronic exhibits include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit, with bookmark titles identifying the exhibit number and briefly describing the exhibit), and Local Rules, rule 4.3.2.A.4 (which provides that pleadings containing more than one exhibit must include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit and titles identifying and briefly describing the exhibit). (See ROA 110, 116, 122, 167.) Further, Respondent's late opposition fails to comply with CRC 3.1300(a), (c), and CCP § 1005(b). The hearing is set for January 10, 2024, but the opposition was filed and served on January 8, 2024, by mail.

Thus, the Court will not consider the untimely opposition. Even if the Court were to consider the opposition, the Court finds no merit therein and is not persuaded that the instant motions and requests for sanctions should be denied.

B. Motions to Compel and Sanctions Objector moves for orders compelling further responses to FROG, Set One, Nos. 12.1, 12.3, 12.4, 12.6, 17.1, and 50(a)-(f); RFP, Set One, Nos. 1-9; and RFA, Set One, Nos. 2, 5, and 6, without objection.

(ROA 108, 114, 121.) Objector argues that despite efforts to resolve the issues informally, Respondent has completely ignored Objector's telephone call and meet-and-confer letter, failing to provide further supplemental responses to the discovery at issue without explanation or justification. Not having received any responses, Objector was forced to file the instant motions.

Here, Objector previously filed motions to compel responses to the discovery presently at issue.

However, these motions were withdrawn, and the rulings vacated, because Respondent served untimely responses prior to the continued hearing.

Based on deficient or incomplete responses provided by Respondent, Objector attempted to meet and confer to further resolve the discovery issues, but Respondent has not responded to Objector nor served supplemental responses.

Respondent concedes she served late supplemental responses on January 8, 2024, the same day she filed the late opposition. Respondent did not provide a copy of the supplemental responses with the opposition, and thus the Court cannot confirm whether the responses are verified, code-compliant responses served without objection. In this regard, the opposition is verified by Respondent, but there is no declaration from counsel discussing her health issues and why counsel was prevented from, at a minimum, alerting Mr. Stone to any issues impacting her or her client's ability to proceed. The Court notes that Ms. Padgett appeared at the November 15, 2023 hearing and was aware of the instant motions to compel, which were filed on September 20, 2023. Ms. Padgett also represented to the Court at the November 15, 2023 hearing that Respondent had suffered some strokes but was cognitively okay.

There is no indication that Ms. Padgett contacted Mr. Stone after the August 2023 production to inform him of any health or delay issues, and no indication that Ms. Padgett responded to Mr. Stone's Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3023230 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  IN THE MATTER OF THE RENTERIA FAMILY TRUST DATED 7/13/2001  37-2022-00028548-PR-TR-CTL meet-and-confer attempts. Ms. Padgett does not explain why she could not have contacted Mr. Stone, when she had several months to do so, to request an extension or discuss some other alternatives to motion practice. Instead, Ms. Padgett waited until the eleventh hour to serve late supplemental responses, which may not even reach Mr. Stone by time of the hearing. Thus, it was not unreasonable for Objector to file the instant motions after the 45-day clock started to run, given Respondent's silence and failure to respond.

The Court further notes that with respect to any discovery abuses, Respondent previously filed a late opposition on August 17, 2023, one day before the hearing on August 18, 2023, which provoked a continuance of the motions to August 25, 2023. Then Respondent served supplemental responses on or about August 21, 2023, and informally resolved the matter of sanctions with attorney Stone, resulting in the withdrawal of the motions by Objector just days before hearing. As such, and because the Court was not in receipt of any opposition to the instant motions from Respondent, for the sake of judicial economy, the clerk of the Court contacted the parties to confirm whether the motions set for January 10, 2024, would be going forward. This was the extent of the information requested by the Court, and in so far as Ms. Padgett argues improper conduct by Mr. Stone in his communication with the clerk, the Court did not consider Mr. Stone's email in ruling on the motions.

As such, the Court finds that Respondent failed to timely respond to discovery and to present any justification to excuse such failure. Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (CCP § 2023.010(d).) Contrary to Respondent's assertion, as the party subject to sanctions, it is her burden, not Objector's, to show lack of substantial justification or other circumstance that would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Padron v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1246, 1269 ['The party subject to sanctions bears the burden to establish it acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.'].) Respondent fails to do so here.

Therefore, the motions to compel further responses are GRANTED. Respondent is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant supplemental responses without objection within 15 days of this order.

The Court finds Objector's corresponding requests for $735 in monetary sanctions per each motion are reasonable and justified. (ROA 110, 116, 122.) The requests are GRANTED, in the total amount of $2,205. (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.290(d), 2023.030(a), [The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses, or one who misuses the discovery process, 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.].) As to the requests for additional monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP § 177.5, the requests are DENIED.

Objector seeks sanctions based on Respondent's counsel's alleged failure to meet and confer and provide any supplemental responses to the outstanding discovery. However, Objector does not identify 'any violation of a lawful court order' by Respondent or her counsel to justify sanctions under CCP § 177.5. (CCP § 177.5 ['A judicial officer shall have the power to impose reasonable money sanctions, not to exceed fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), notwithstanding any other provision of law, payable to the court, for any violation of a lawful court order by a person, done without good cause or substantial justification.' (Emphasis added.)].) The tentative ruling on the original set of motions issued on August 24, 2023 (ROA 85) was vacated. Thus, there is no grounds to impose sanctions under this section and the requests are DENIED.

Counsel for moving party is directed to serve written notice of ruling in accordance with the provisions of CCP § 1019.5(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3023230 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  IN THE MATTER OF THE RENTERIA FAMILY TRUST DATED 7/13/2001  37-2022-00028548-PR-TR-CTL Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3023230