Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV39275, Date: 2022-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV39275    Hearing Date: August 3, 2022    Dept: 55

LIRA v. COSIO                                                        20STCV39275 

Hearing Date:  8/3/22,  Dept. 55

#5:   

1.      MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (SET TWO) AND IMPOSE MONETARY SANCTIONS.

2.      MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY")

3.      MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY").

4.      MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED.

Notice:  Okay  (per 5/31 minute order shortening time).

No Opposition

MP:  Plaintiff

RP:  

Summary

On 10/13/20, Plaintiff JOSE ANTONIO OLIVARES LIRA filed a Complaint, alleging a breach of contract and fraud, committed by Defendant, after Defendant agreed to produce textile materials in exchange for money tendered by Plaintiff, but Defendant never delivered.

MP Positions

In addition to initial responses, moving party requests an order compelling Defendant SILVESTRE COSIO to serve further responses to requests for admissions, and awarding $3,261.50 sanctions against Defendant and defense counsel, on grounds including the following:

·         Plaintiff propounded a second set of Requests for Admission on Defendant, requiring Defendant to admit or deny the authenticity screenshots depicting multiple text conversations between him and Plaintiff.

·         The messages between the parties are directly relevant to the case, as the content directly references the allegations made in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

·         Rather than admitting or denying the authenticity of the documents propounded upon him, Defendant merely objected to Requests 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, and 50, on the basis of being “impermissibly compound,” and objected to Requests 44, 45, and 49, on the basis of “relevance.”

·

Tentative Ruling

The unopposed “MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (SET TWO)” is granted, as prayed.

The unopposed “MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY")” is granted, as prayed.

The unopposed “MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY")” is granted, as prayed.

The unopposed “MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED” is granted, as prayed.

The failure to file a proper and timely opposition in trial court creates a waiver of the issues on any appeal.  Bell v. Am. Title Ins. Co. (1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 1589, 1602;  Cabrini Villas Homeowners Assn. v. Haghverdian (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4th 683, 693 

Further, as to the motion to compel further responses, after reviewing the separate statement, the Court finds that the responses, consisting of objections to compound requests, or to lack of relevance, do not apply.

The requests are not impermissibly compound, because they relate to the same topic—mainly a texting thread. How strictly the rule against compound discovery will be applied, remains to be seen.  Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1291 (quoting a treatise opining that the rule only applies where more than one subject is addressed).  Admission requests shall not be compound.  People ex rel. Dept. of Trans. v. Ad Way Signs, Inc.  (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 187, 200 n. 13. 

Additionally, the relevance standard is broad, and the subject requests are associated with the instant allegations and litigation.  “‘An order compelling discovery must rest on a showing that the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence….’"  Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 74, 117.  “[I]t is difficult to define at the discovery stage what evidence will be relevant at trial. Therefore, the party seeking discovery is entitled to substantial leeway…. Furthermore, California's liberal approach to permissible discovery generally has led the courts to resolve any doubt in favor of permitting discovery….  In doing so, the courts have taken the view if an error is made in ruling on a discovery motion, it is better that it be made in favor of granting discovery of the nondiscoverable rather than denying discovery of information vital to preparation or presentation of the  party's case or to efficacious settlement of the dispute.”  Norton v. Sup. Ct. (1994) 24 Cal. App. 4th 1750, 1761.  “‘[D]oubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery….’” Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 785, 790 (“‘An appellate court cannot reverse a trial court's grant of discovery under a 'relevancy' attack unless it concludes that the answers sought by a given line of questioning cannot as a reasonable possibility lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or be helpful in preparation for trial.’")

Where respondents timely responded to requests for admissions, requesting parties may move to compel further answers based upon a showing of some deficiency.  Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 618, 636; CCP §2033.290.