Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV02564, Date: 2024-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV02564    Hearing Date: July 26, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiffs Nerses Gevorgyan and Elena Avetisian (“Plaintiffs”) allege that on June 21, 2022, they were involved in a motor vehicle accident with Defendant Samuel Carter Rietta (“Defendant”).  They allege that Nerses Gevorgyan was operating a 2015 BMW 740i on eastbound 101 Freeway at the Tujunga Ave. exit off-ramp in North Hollywood and Elena Avetisian was a passenger in the vehicle.  Plaintiffs allege that at around that time and location, Defendant operated a 2021 Nissan Sentra.  Plaintiffs allege that while they were stopped, Defendant negligently failed to stop and rear-ended Plaintiffs’ vehicle, causing a collision. 

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

B.     Motion on Calendar

On June 3, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Request for Admission, set one (“RFA”), Nos. 1 and 2. 

On June 26, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant’s further responses to RFA Nos. 1-2.    

            RFA No. 1 asks Defendant to admit that his negligence caused the subject accident.  RFA No. 2 asks Defendant to admit that he was 100% liable for the occurrence of the subject incident.  Defendant objected to the RFAs on the grounds that they called for information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and Insurance Code, § 791.13; and were premature pursuant to CCP § 2034.010 et seq.[1]  Without waiving objections, Defendant responded that based on the current state of discovery, he is unable to admit and/or deny the RFA. 

            CCP § 2033.220 states:

(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) Each answer shall:

(1) Admit 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.

(2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue.

(3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.

(c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.

(CCP § 2033.220.) 

            Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s discovery responses to the form interrogatories show that there were no other witnesses to the incident and no one else contributed to the accident.  Thus, Plaintiff argues that Defendant should be able to respond to the RFAs.  In opposition, Defendant argues that he has attempted to obtain the information he needs to fully respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery, via deposing the only other witnesses to this incident, but Plaintiffs have prevented Defendant from doing so.  Defendant argues that if he admits the RFAs now, then he has admitted to negligence, and if he denies the RFAs now, then Plaintiffs can later seek costs for his failure to admit the RFA if his denial proves to be false. 

Defendant’s response fails to comply with section 2033.220’s requirement regarding the form and content of a response to RFA requests.  Defendant provides objections, but also responds: “Based on the current status of discovery in this matter, Mr. Rietta is unable to admit and/or deny this Request at this time. Discovery and investigation ongoing and continuing.”  To the extent that Defendant is relying on subsection (c) section 2033.220, Defendant has not stated that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the RFAs has been made and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit the matter.  A response compliant with section 2033.220 should be provided.  The parties should continue meeting and conferring and cooperating in the discovery process to ensure that necessary depositions and written discovery are timely completed.

The motion to compel further responses is granted. 

Plaintiffs seek $5,060 in sanctions against Defendant and his counsel of record.  The Court grants the request, but will reduce the amount to a reasonable sum of $500 in attorney’s fees and $60 in filing fees in light of the ruling on this motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Nerses Gevorgyan and Elena Avetisian’s motion to compel Defendant Samuel Carter Rietta’s further responses to the RFA Nos. 1 and 2 is granted.  Defendant is ordered to provide further responses within 20 days of notice of this order.

Defendant and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $560 to Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiffs shall provide notice of this order. 

DATED: July 26, 2024                                                           ___________________________

                                                                                          John Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court