Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV23986, Date: 2023-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23986    Hearing Date: December 6, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

          On October 7, 2021, Plaintiff Lucio Vasquez and Sonia Carcamo (“Plaintiffs”) filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendant Richard Birnholz, Diane Birnholz (“Defendants”), and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, for alleging causes of action (1) negligence and (2) premises liability. On July 6, 2023, Defendants served Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Admissions, Set One, on Plaintiff Lucio Vasquez.

          Defendants’ filed two (2) motions to compel further responses to these discovery requests on September 25, 2023. This ruling addresses both motions. On November 14, 2023, this Court held an informal discovery conference, where the issues were not resolved. The parties were directed to meet and confer by November 29, 2023 and Defendants were ordered to file a status report by December 1, 2023.

          On November 29, 2023, Defendants’ filed a status report regarding the motions to compel further responses, which indicates that Defendants’ continue to believe that Plaintiff Vasquez further responses served on November 21, 2023 are not complete or straightforward.

          Legal Standard — Compel Further Responses

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (a), and Section 2033.290, parties may move for a further response to interrogatories or requests for admissions where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general.  

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b).)    

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)). 

Analysis

Timeliness

The Court finds that the motions are timely made. The motions were filed within 45 days of the last supplemental response and the Court is not jurisdictionally prohibited from considering the instant motions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c), 2033.290, subd. (c).) The Court also finds that moving Defendants have satisfied their obligation to meet and confer.

Ruling on Plaintiff’s Objections

Tthe objections made by Plaintiff Vasquez in his responses are sustained because they are supported by reasoned argument or authority.  Ultimately, the issues here come down to whether or not Defendant is required to admit that he is either an “employee” or independent contractor.”  But, as both parties recognize, these terms can have specific legal meanings with specific legal consequences.  Thus, the requests are vague and ambiguous as to whether they mean the legal definitions of these terms, and then, if in fact they do, the requests call for a legal conclusion.

With regard to Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding their effort to narrow issues through discovery, this ruling does not prevent them from doing that.  They can still seek discovery that will lead to a determination of the legal conclusion.  So, for instance, they could ask Defendant to admit that he he had a distinct gutter cleaning business, Plaintiffs could ask further questions related to the legal definitions of employee or independent contractor.  But Defendant is not required to admit to the legal conclusion.

While the Court finds Plaintiff’s objections and explanations reasonable in this instance, Plaintiff has not fully complied with Form Interrogatory 17.1.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve code compliant response to Form Interrogtory 17.1(c) and 17.1(d).  The present responses are not code compliant. 

Rulings on Individual Requests

Form Interrogatory Set Two

Request for Admissions, Set One

Monetary Sanctions

Where the court grants a motion to compel further responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (e), 2033.290, subd. (e).) 

The motions to compel further were partially successfully opposed and arguably rendered moot as Plaintiff Vasquez provided further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two and Request for Admissions, Set One.  As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff Vazquez acted with substantial justification and accordingly, in its discretion, does not award sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Richard Birnholz and Diane Birnholz’s motions to compel further responses to (1) Form Interrogatories, Set Two and (2) Requests for Admissions, Set One, are DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.  Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1, parts (c) and (d) within 20 days of this ruling.

Defendants Richard Birnholz and Diane Birnholz’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Dated this 6^th day of December 2023