Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2022-00044734-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 24, 2023

08/25/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00044734-CU-OE-CTL DURANT VS D AND J STABLES [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Defendant Scott Tynan (d/b/a D&J Stables)'s motion to compel Plaintiff Laura Durant to provide further responses to requests for admission and form interrogatory no. 17.1 is DENIED.

Durant responded to RFAs 20, 22, 26, and 27 by stating that she is unable to admit or deny the request despite a reasonable inquiry. Durant responded to RFA 28 by denying the request. Durant also provided a straightforward response to each subpart of FROG 17.1 for each RFA at issue. These responses are code-complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.220; 2033.220.) Tynan asserts that Durant should have been able to admit or deny RFAs 20, 22, 26, and 27. He also argues that Durant falsely denied RFA 28. Those may be grounds for cost of proof sanctions, but they are not a basis for compelling further responses. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a); Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Macias (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1028; Holguin v. Superior Court (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 812, 820.) Tynan also argues that Durant's response to FROG 17.1, as respects RFA 28, is false. Again, that is not a basis for compelling a further response. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1)–(3); Holguin, supra, 22 Cal.App.3d at pp. 820–821.) Durant's responses are code-compliant. The motion to compel is therefore denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2980279  28