Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC07499, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC07499    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL (FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS) and FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS  

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Giovanni A. Perelli (“Plaintiff”)  

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; AND FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280 etc.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motions for an Order Compelling Defendant Judith Burie and Jeffrey Miles Burie’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents, and Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted are DENIED.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.  

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     OK

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of April 27, 2023                [   ] Late                      [ X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of April 27, 2023                [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On April 9, 2021, Plaintiff Giovanni A. Perelli (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Judith Buries and Jeffrey Miles Buries (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants filed a joint Answer to the Complaint on February 14, 2023.   

Plaintiff filed four separate Motions that are directed at both Defendants:  (1) for an order compelling Defendant Judith Burie and Jeffrey Miles Burie’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, 2) for an order compelling Defendants’ Responses to Form Interrogatories; (3) for an Order Compelling Defendants’ Responses to  Request for Production of Documents and (4) for an Order Deeming the Truth of Matters in Requested for Admission Set One Admitted.  Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions.

II.              Legal Standard & Discussion

The Court finds that it cannot rule on the instant Motions because Plaintiff’s discovery requests have vastly exceeded what is permitted in a limited civil action.  In this case, Plaintiff propounded more than 100 requests to each of the Defendants.  However, Code of Civil Procedure section 94)a) limits discovery in limited jurisdiction actions to “any combination of 35 of the following:  interrogatories with  no subparts . . . , demands to produce documents or things . . . ., requests for admission with (no subpart).”  Plaintiff’s more than 100 requests to each Defendant exceeds what is permitted in this limited civil action and the Court will not choose which requests to eliminate for Plaintiff’s discovery requests to come into compliance with the rule of 35. 

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motions are DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.