Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00328, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00328    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

            This action involves the real property located at 2309 N. Naomi St., Burbank, CA 91504.   

            Plaintiff Diana Gomez, Plaintiff William Antonio Barrera Jr., and Defendant Sadie Gomez-Rosas are siblings.  Defendant Esperanza P. UC-Barrera is their mother.  Defendants The Barrera Family Trust Agreement Dated 10/03/1996, The Barrera Living Trust Agreement, The Barrera 1996 Trust Agreement, and Barrera Trust are living trusts.

            Plaintiffs allege that on October 3, 1996, a living trust was created by their father under one of the aforementioned “possible” names.  On March 14, 1997, Plaintiffs’ father passed away leaving the property under the living trust in possession of its beneficiaries, which includes Plaintiffs.  They allege that though they have an interest in the property, Defendants have put the property up for sale without Plaintiffs’ consent. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have refused to provide a copy of the living trust agreement to Plaintiffs.  Diana Gomez alleges that she moved into the subject premises in 2015 and has acted as the onsite manager for over 20 years.  On April 7, 2022, Defendants served Diana Gomez with a 30-Day Notice to Vacate. 

            The second amended complaint (“SAC”), filed January 17, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) quiet title; (2) promissory estoppel; (3) promissory fraud; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) constructive and/or resulting trust; (6) declaratory relief; and (7) IIED.

            On July 6, 2022, the following defaults were entered: The Barrera Family Trust Agreement Dated 10/03/1996, a living trust; The Barrera Living Trust Agreement, a living trust; The Barrera 1996 Trust Agreement, a living trust; and Barrera Trust, a living trust. 

B.     Motions on Calendar

On January 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed 3 motions to compel Defendant Sadia Gomez’s further responses to: (1) Special Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”); (2) Request for Production, set one (“RPD”); and (3) Request for Admission, set one (“RFA”). 

On January 30, 2023, Defendant Sadia Gomez filed opposition briefs to each of the motions.

On February 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed reply briefs.

DISCUSSION  

A.    SROG

Plaintiffs move to compel Sadia Gomez’s further responses to SROG Nos. 1-31.

In opposition, Sadia Gomez argues that the motion was filed in bad faith and without completing the meet and confer process.  Sadia Gomez argues that the discovery and meet and confer efforts improperly relied on the 1996 version of the Trust when the 1996 Trust has since been superseded by the 2016 Restatement of the 1996 Trust as well as a 2022 Amendment.  Defense counsel states that he attempted to continue meet and confer efforts, but Plaintiff went forward and filed this motion without completing informal efforts to resolve this matter. (See Opp., Ex. B.)  Thus, Sadia Gomez requests that the motion be denied and Plaintiff be ordered to meet and confer about the discovery.

The Court has reviewed the moving papers and the separate statement.  The Court notes that the memorandum of points and authorities broadly addresses the legal standard for a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and Plaintiffs’ general arguments that Sadia Gomez’s responses were inadequate and lacking.  In the separate statement, Sadia Gomez argues that there is good cause for discovery because Plaintiffs have an interest in the subject premises, but Defendants continue to proceed with the sale of the property.  Plaintiffs also argue generally that all of Sadia Gomez’s objections are invalid.  The separate statement then lists the SROG and Sadia Gomez’s response, but Plaintiffs do not specifically address each SROG and Defendants’ response thereto and why a further response is necessary.  The Court also notes that Sadia Gomez did not file a responsive separate statement with the opposition brief.

The Court will continue the hearing on this motion to compel further responses for several reasons.

First, as stated by Sadia Gomez, she is willing to continue meet and confer efforts to resolve the discovery dispute.  These efforts should be made in good faith prior to filing the motion.  It appears that there are issues regarding the various versions of the Trust.  By this point, all versions of the trust documents should have been provided to Plaintiffs and, if they have not, then they should be promptly produced by Sadia Gomez to Plaintiffs.  Upon receipt of the trust documents (earlier versions and revised versions), the SROGs can be adjusted and clarified to seek relevant information.

Second, there are many issues with Plaintiff’s separate statement.  For example, SROG No. 1 asks Sadia Gomez to identify the person(s) responding in the SROGs on her behalf and identify each person who has provided information in connection with the SROGs.  In the separate statement, Plaintiffs then state: “Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague as to the terms trust. This is an improper objection because the term trust is defined clearly in our requests.”  It is unclear if this was Sadia Gomez’s response or if this is Plaintiffs’ summary of Sadia Gomez’s response and Plaintiffs’ attempt to argue why a further response is necessary.  A review of Sadia Gomez’s discovery response to SROG No. 1 (attached as Exhibit F to the moving papers), shows that Sadia Gomez responded as follows: “Objection. RESPONDING PARTY objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and Attorney Privilege, Without Waiving Objections Responding Party responds: Matthew R. Stidham, Esq. of The Legacy Lawyers, P.C., 18872 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92612. Sadia Gomez-Rosas, Defendant and Responding Party.”  (See Mot., Ex. F [SROG Response at pp.3-4].) 

The Court notes that the separate statement is inaccurate as to SROG Nos. 1-12.  For each and every “response” to SROG Nos. 1-12, Plaintiffs state that Sadia Gomez responded in the same manner: “Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague as to the terms trust. This is an improper objection because the term trust is defined clearly in our requests.”  However, a review of Sadia Gomez’s responses to SROG Nos. 1-12 based on her responses in Exhibit F of the moving papers show that she responded/objected in a different manner. 

Thus, there appear to be inaccuracies in Plaintiff’s separate statement with respect to Sadia Gomez’s responses to the SROGs.  Ordinarily, the Court would be inclined to deny the motion in its entirety for the failure to provide a proper separate statement to the Court.  However, upon the request of Sadia Gomez, the Court will continue the hearing on the motion to allow the parties to meet and confer in hopes of informally resolving this matter.  If the parties are unable to resolve this matter informally and take the motion off-calendar, then Plaintiffs are ordered to file an amended separate statement that accurately reflects Sadia Gomez’s discovery responses. It is Plaintiffs’ burden as the moving party to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure and show why further responses are necessary.

B.     RPD

Although Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Sadia Gomez’s further responses to the RPD, Plaintiffs have not identified which RPDs are at issue.  Further, a review of Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement in Support of Motion for Order to Compel Further Responses for RPD includes analysis for RFA Nos. 1-30.  The separate statement does not include any discussion of which RPDs are at issue, Sadia Gomez’s responses/objections, Plaintiffs’ reasons for good cause of the production of documents, and why Plaintiffs seek a further response.

In addition, the Court notes that a copy of Sadia Gomez’s responses to the RPDs is not provided with the moving papers.  Instead, a copy of Sadia Gomez’s responses to the SROGs is attached to the motion to compel further responses to the RPDs.  As such, the Court cannot verify Sadia Gomez’s responses to the RPD. 

Finally, Sadia Gomez requests in her opposition that the Court order the parties to meet and confer on the discovery at issue.  

The Court would be inclined to deny this motion in its entirety for Plaintiffs’ failure to properly file a separate statement and address the RPDs at issue.  However, the Court will continue the hearing on the motion to compel Sadia Gomez’s further response to the RPD.  The parties are ordered to make adequate efforts to meet and confer.  If the parties are unable to resolve their discovery disputes, then Plaintiffs are ordered to file an amended separate statement indicating to the Court what discovery is remaining.  Upon refiling the separate statement, Plaintiffs should take due care to accurately reflect the RPDs and Sadia Gomez’s responses/objections, as well as provide arguments why a further response is merited. In addition, Plaintiffs are ordered to provide a copy of the Sadia Gomez’s responses to the RPDs as a separate exhibit so that the Court can verify that Plaintiffs’ separate statement accurately reflects Sadia Gomez’s responses/objections. 

C.     RFA

Plaintiffs move to compel Sadia Gomez’s further responses to RFA Nos. 1-30.  The Court notes that a copy of Sadia Gomez’s responses to the RFAs is not provided with the moving papers.  Instead, a copy of Sadia Gomez’s responses to the SROGs is attached to the motion to compel further responses to the RFAs.  As such, the Court cannot determine if the separate statement regarding the RFAs is accurate.  Based on the separate statement currently before the Court, Plaintiffs state that Sadia Gomez objected to the RFAs on the grounds that the “interrogatory” was vague as to the “terms trust.”  It is unclear if this is an accurate reflection of Sadia Gomez’s objections/responses as RFAs are at issue in this motion and not interrogatories.

Finally, Sadia Gomez requests in her opposition that the Court order the parties to meet and confer on the discovery at issue.  

As stated above, the Court would be inclined to deny this motion in its entirety for Plaintiffs’ failure to properly file a separate statement and address the RFAs at issue.  However, the Court will continue the hearing on the motion to compel further responses to the RFA.  The parties are ordered to make adequate efforts to meet and confer.  If the parties are unable to resolve their discovery disputes, then Plaintiffs are ordered to file an amended separate statement indicating to the Court what discovery is remaining.  As stated above, Plaintiffs are ordered to provide an accurate separate statement detailing the parties’ requests and responses/objections.  In addition, Plaintiffs are ordered to provide a copy of the Sadia Gomez’s responses to the RFAs as a separate exhibit so that the Court can verify that Plaintiffs’ separate statement accurately reflects Sadia Gomez’s responses/objections. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs’ three motions to compel Defendant Sadia Gomez’s further responses to SROG, RPD, and RFA are continued to April 14, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in this Department. 

The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the outstanding discovery.  If the parties are unable to informally resolve this matter and do not take the motions off-calendar, then Plaintiffs are ordered to file and serve amended separate statements to the SROGs, RPDs, and RFAs by the end of the business day on March 17, 2023.  These separate statements should provide an update to the Court regarding the meet and confer efforts following this order and what discovery remains outstanding.  Plaintiffs are also ordered to include copies of Defendant’s responses/objections to the discovery with the separate statements.  Defendant Sadia Gomez is ordered to file and serve opposing separate statements by the end of the business day on March 30, 2023.  No further briefing will be permitted. 

            Plaintiffs shall provide notice of this order.