Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV192129, Date: 2025-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV192129    Hearing Date: February 14, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

At issue are Defendant’s motions to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set Two, Nos. 15-50, and Form Interrogatory, Set Two, No. 17.1. The parties attended IDCs on December 11, 2024, and December 20, 2024, but did not resolve the issues.

Defendant’s Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 asks:

"Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) State the number of the request; (b) State all facts on which you base your response; (c) State the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) Identify all documents and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, address, and telephone number of the person who has each document or thing."

Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 states:

"17.1 (a) 15-50. (b-d) Plaintiff is not required to provide these responses, which would require Plaintiff to identify every fact, person, and document that his counsel believes is evidence. Plaintiff incorporates by reference his objections to each Request for Admission herein, which are set forth below. The interrogatories are unintelligible as they require a party, who in response to a Request for Admission denies that they ‘have no evidence’ (a double negative), to then affirmatively respond and provide unlimited information as to ‘all facts on which the response’ is based—i.e., to identify any and all ‘evidence’ (including expert evidence, which is premature); to identify any person who knows of the existence of evidence (including expert witnesses, which is premature); and documents that support the existence of evidence (including expert evidence, which is premature). This violates the applicable code provisions, duplicates the concurrently propounded Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production, requires a summary or compilation of evidence that Defendant already possesses, is oppressive, burdensome, and harassing, in addition to calling for attorney work product, invading the attorney-client privilege, and calling for premature expert discovery."

Defendant’s RFAs at issue all follow the same format, asking Plaintiff to "Admit that YOU have no evidence that..." as to certain allegations relating to Defendant BOP FIGAT7TH in Plaintiff’s complaint.

For example, RFA No. 17 states:

"Admit that YOU have no evidence that BOP FIGAT7TH, ‘…knew assault was being committed…’ as alleged in paragraph 41 of YOUR complaint."

Plaintiff’s response to each RFA is identical, stating:

"Objection: This request is unintelligible. The exclusion of definitions and improper insertion of edited portions of allegations, some of which are jurisdictional and are repeated throughout a complaint to satisfy a pleading requirement and are not intended for use as a discovery request, causes the request to be duplicative of all other requests, inaccurate, and incomplete, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.010. This makes the request compound, burdensome, harassing, and unintelligible. It duplicates Requests for Admission 5-13 and, as stated therein and in prior meet and confer efforts, violates Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.010 because it does not relate to ‘the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.’ Whether or not a party has ‘evidence’ is not a proper Request for Admission, violates the attorney-client and work product privileges, is oppressive, burdensome, and harassing. Despite the new request now relating to a part of an allegation, which is incomplete and unintelligible, it remains duplicative of prior requests about the matters stated therein and the following ones. It also calls for premature expert discovery."

Discussion

Substantive Discovery

Plaintiff’s main contention in the opposition is that the RFAs are improper. Plaintiff’s counsel declares: “At the IDC in this case, this department advised Defendant that this type of Request for Admission is improper. Knowing this, no reasonable attorney, after the IDC and having already filed a motion for summary judgment, would file these motions to compel.” (Rand-Lewis Decl. ¶ 2.)

However, this court position is not reflected in the minute orders for the December 11 and December 20 IDCs, nor is it reflected in the status report filed on December 18, 2024, where the Court directed the parties to meet and confer further on the pending discovery responses, including the RFAs. The most recent ruling on this issue is the December 20, 2024, minute order. However, that order only states that the issue was not resolved and directed the parties to file a status report by January 13, 2025. No status report was filed, and Defendant filed the motion on January 2, 2025. Plaintiff also did not provide a transcript of the IDC to support this claim.  (Although the IDC at which Plaintiff contends the Court supported his position was before this judicial officer, it is worth noting that many of the discovery disputes in this case, including this one, originated when the case was assigned to a different department and was presided over by a different judicial officer.) At the same time, Defendant, in the Reply, did not directly contest Plaintiff’s assertion regarding what occurred at the IDC.

In any event, RFAs, as explained in St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, serve a distinct purpose from other civil discovery tools such as depositions, interrogatories, and requests for documents. “Most of the other discovery procedures are aimed primarily at assisting counsel to prepare for trial. Requests for admissions, on the other hand, are primarily aimed at setting at rest a triable issue so that it will not have to be tried. (Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429.) RFAs “seek to eliminate the need for proof” rather than uncover information. (Stull v. Sparrow (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 860, 864.)

Sometimes, the admissions obtained will even leave the party making them vulnerable to summary judgment.” (Hogan & Weber, California Civil Discovery (2d ed. 2005) § 9.1, p. 9–2, quoting Shepard & Morgan v. Lee & Daniel, Inc. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 256, 261.) Matters admitted or deemed admitted through RFAs are conclusively established in the litigation and cannot be contested with contradictory evidence. (Murillo v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 730, 736.)

Further, under CCP § 2033.010, which governs the scope of Requests for Admission, “Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delineated by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010) by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.”

Defendant’s RFAs do not seem to fall within the permissible categories under CCP § 2033.010, which limits RFAs to requests regarding the genuineness of documents, the truth of specified matters of fact, opinions relating to fact, or the application of law to fact. Defendant’s RFAs do not seek an admission regarding any underlying fact of the case. Instead, they attempt to compel Plaintiff to admit the current status of his discovery, specifically, whether Plaintiff presently possesses evidence on a given issue. This is not an appropriate use of RFAs.

As St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762 explains, RFAs are designed to “eliminate the need for proof” on triable issues, meaning they relate to substantive facts of the case that require no further litigation. The status of discovery is not a triable issue and thus falls outside the proper scope of RFAs.

Because the Court finds the RFAs improper, the corresponding Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, which is based on Plaintiff’s responses to the RFAs, is a moot issue.

Sanctions

Both parties request sanctions against the other.  Defendant’s request is denied given that the Court does not find its position meritorious.  Plaintiff’s request is also denied; the Court finds Defendant had sufficient justification to bring the motions, thereby not warranting sanctions.

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’s 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.