Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

jason david pineda, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

christopher j. sandoval, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 23BBCV00991

Hearing Date: May 3, 2024

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for protective order

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations

Plaintiffs Jason David Pineda and Felix Mauricio Pineda (“Plaintiffs”) allege that on June 23, 2021, they were involved in a motor vehicle accident with Defendants Christopher J. Sandoval and Romany Sadek Metry, who were operating the other vehicle. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ vehicle was owned by Defendants Hector Sandoval and Romany Sadek Metry and they entrusted the vehicle to Christopher J. Sandoval and Romany Sadek Metry. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants negligently owned, operated, used, drove, maintained, loaned, and/or entrusted their motor vehicle such that it collided with the vehicle driven by Plaintiffs, thereby causing injuries and damages.

The complaint, filed May 3, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) motor vehicle and (2) general negligence.

On July 24, 2023, Plaintiffs dismissed without prejudice Romany Sadek Metry only from the action.

B. Motion on Calendar

On April 8, 2024, Defendant Christopher J. Sandoval filed a motion for protective order limiting the number of requests for admission (“RFA”) that he must answer and for sanctions.

On April 22, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief.

On April 26, 2024, Defendant filed a reply brief.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 2033.030 states:

(a) No party shall request, as a matter of right, that any other party admit more than 35 matters that do not relate to the genuineness of documents. If the initial set of admission requests does not exhaust this limit, the balance may be requested in subsequent sets.

(b) Unless a declaration as described in Section 2033.050 has been made, a party need only respond to the first 35 admission requests served that do not relate to the genuineness of documents, if that party states an objection to the balance under Section 2033.230 on the ground that the limit has been exceeded.

(c) The number of requests for admission of the genuineness of documents is not limited except as justice requires to protect the responding party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense.

(CCP § 2033.030.) However, “[a]ny party who is requesting or who has already requested more than 35 admissions not relating to the genuineness of documents by any other party shall attach to each set of requests for admissions a declaration” that conforms to section 2033.050. (CCP § 2033.050.)

CCP § 2033.040 states:

(a) Subject to the right of the responding party to seek a protective order under Section 2033.080, any party who attaches a supporting declaration as described in Section 2033.050 may request a greater number of admissions by another party if the greater number is warranted by the complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case.

(b) If the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of requests for admission is unwarranted, the propounding party shall have the burden of justifying the number of requests for admission.

(CCP § 2033.040.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant Christopher J. Sandoval (hereinafter, “Defendant”) moves for a protective order directing that he need only respond to: (1) RFA Nos. 1-35 in Plaintiff Felix Mauricio Pineda’s RFA, set one; and (2) RFA Nos. 26-35 in Plaintiff Jason David Pineda’s RFA, set two. Defendant seeks $662.28 in sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel of record.

Defendant argues that: (a) Plaintiff Jason David Pineda served on him RFA, set one, Nos. 1-25 on November 28, 2023 (which Defendant objected to); (b) Plaintiff Felix Mauricio Pineda served him with RFA, set one, Nos. 1-90 on March 11, 2024; and (c) Plaintiff Jason David Pineda served him with RFA, set two, with 79 additional requests. Defendant argues that the parties met and conferred, wherein Defendant requested that the RFAs be limited to Plaintiff Felix Mauricio Pineda’s RFA, set one, Nos. 1-35, and to Plaintiff Felix Mauricio Pineda’s RFA, set two, Nos. 26-35 (as Defendant already responded/objected to RFA, set one, Nos. 1-25). Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have refused to withdraw any of the 194 RFAs, despite this being a “run-of-the-mill” auto accident case.

Defendant argues that the number of RFAs propounded by Plaintiffs is excessive and that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration in support of the excessive RFAs is not code-compliant. Specifically, Defendant takes issues with paragraph 8, wherein Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that the number of RFAs is warranted because “of the complexity and the quality of issues in the instant lawsuit warrant this number of requests for admissions.” (See Eisaeian Decl., ¶¶11-12, Ex. H [3/11/24 Cinela Aziz Declaration for Add’l Discovery re Plaintiff Felix Pineda’s RFA, set one, Nos. 1-90, ¶8], Ex. I [3/12/24 Cinela Aziz Declaration for Add’l Discovery re Plaintiff Jason Pineda’s RFA, set two, Nos. 26-104, ¶8].)

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the amended declaration of Ms. Aziz (dated April 22, 2024—the same date as the opposition) satisfies the requirement under CCP § 2033.050. (See Aziz Decl. re Opp., Exs. 5-6.) In the amended declaration, Ms. Aziz further states in paragraph 8 that the RFAs seek admissions regarding matters that were not previously asked and that are essential for trial, as they seek to uncover Defendants’ position with regard to Plaintiffs’ injuries, the impact of the injuries on Plaintiffs’ lives, Plaintiffs’ medical diagnoses and treatment, Plaintiffs’ underlying medical conditions, pre-and-post incident vehicular collisions of each Plaintiffs, specific facts about how the collision occurred, whether Plaintiffs are perceived as repeat-litigants, and whether Defendants conducted sub rosa investigation of Plaintiffs or their family members. (Id.)

Ms. Aziz’s amended declarations may arguably comply with the code for the RFAs in excess of the 35-request limit. However, the amended declarations were filed with the opposition papers and are dated on the same date as the opposition. Thus, they were not provided at the time the RFAs were initially propounded.

Based on the Court’s review, the additional RFAs are not justified by the alleged complexity of the litigation. In this case, Plaintiffs have the benefit of the Form Interrogatories and additional Special Interrogatories which are sufficient in the normal motor vehicle accident to get Plaintiffs the information they need. There is nothing that suggests that this case is unduly complex, or complex at all. Moreover, most of these additional RFAs are directed to the issue of Plaintiffs’ medical condition, an issue as to which Defendants do not have any information aside from what Plaintiffs themselves have provided and the expert analysis, which is not yet due under the normal schedule for a case like this. Therefore, it is anticipated that Defendants will be providing denials, but essentially useless denials since Plaintiffs already know the universe of information upon which those denials are based. These RFAs thus add an essentially useless layer of costs to a matter that has approximately $20,000 in medical specials.

In light of the issues presented by the motion, Defendant’s counsel met and conferred sufficiently. Defendant requests $662.28 in sanctions for filing the motion. Plaintiffs request $1,310 for filing the opposition. The Court grants Defendant’s request and denies that of the Plaintiffs.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant Christopher J. Sandoval’s motion for protective order limiting the number of RFAs that he must answer is granted. Sanctions in the amount of $662.28 are awarded and are payable by Plaintiffs and their counsel to Defendant within 20 days of notice of this order.

Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order.

DATED: May 3, 2024 ___________________________

John J. Kralik

Judge of the Superior Court