Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 20SMCV01023, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20SMCV01023    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Klenk v. Behringer Harvard Redwood

CASE NO.:                20SMCV01023

MOTION:                  Motion for Protective Order

HEARING DATE:   3/2/2023

Legal Standard

No party shall request, as a matter of right, that any other party admit more than 35 matters that do not relate to the genuineness of documents. If the initial set of admission requests does not exhaust this limit, the balance may be requested in subsequent sets. (CCP § 2033.030(a).) Unless a declaration as described in Section 2033.050 has been made, a party need only respond to the first 35 admission requests served that do not relate to the genuineness of documents, if that party states an objection to the balance under Section 2033.230 on the ground that the limit has been exceeded. (CCP § 2033.030 (b).) The number of requests for admission of the genuineness of documents is not limited except as justice requires to protect the responding party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense. (CCP § 2033.030 (c).)   

Subject to the right of the responding party to seek a protective order, any party who attaches a supporting declaration as described in Section 2033.050 may request a greater number of admissions if the greater number is warranted by the complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case. (CCP, § 2033.040 (a).)  If the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of requests for admission is unwarranted, the propounding party shall have the burden of justifying the number of requests for admission. (CCP § 2033.040 (b).) 

When requests for admission have been made, the responding party may promptly move for a protective order.  The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (CCP, § 2033.080(a).)  The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions: (1) that the set of admission requests, or particular requests in the set, need not be answered at all; (2) that, contrary to the representations made in a declaration submitted under Section 2033.050, the number of admission requests is unwarranted; (3) that the time specified in Section 2033.250 to respond to the set of admission requests, or to particular requests in the set, be extended; (4) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be admitted or be admitted only in a certain way; (5) that some or all of the answers to requests for admission be sealed and thereafter opened only on order of the court. (CCP, § 2033.080(b).) 

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order under this section, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP, § 2033.080(d).) 

Analysis

Defendants GS Redwood Property, LLC, Greystar Worldwide, LLC, and Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC move for a protective order against Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (RFAs) served on each Defendant. Each set contains 119 RFAs (and corresponding form interrogatory 17.1). Defendant argues that the number of RFAs is not justified because this is a single-plaintiff, single-unit, “garden-variety” habitability case. The SAC states seven causes of action, but the allegations boil down to an alleged formaldehyde leak, non-code electrical wiring, leaky plumbing, vermin, and rubbish. (SAC, ¶ 15.)

Plaintiff failed to file an opposition, but counsel filed a declaration indicating that the supporting declaration for the RFAs justify the number of requests for admissions, and that Defendants have served voluminous discovery on Plaintiff in excess of the minimums, including 103 special interrogatories.

The RFAs are largely repetitive, with minor variations between the RFAs stemming from parsing specific bases for liability (e.g., RFA nos. 36-41, 49-75), different time periods (e.g., RFA 14-27, 42-44) or affirmative defenses (e.g., 93-119). In light of the repetitive nature of the RFAs, and Plaintiff’s ability to have propounded more succent RFAs, the Court will limit Plaintiff to 75 RFAs.  Of the 119 RFAs, Plaintiff shall designate to Defendant’s counsel within five days which 75 RFAs they would like responses to.  Those responses will be due within 20 days of receiving Plaintiff’s updated requests. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED, in part.