Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV02275, Date: 2024-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02275    Hearing Date: July 26, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Holt LC, v. Fox, et al.

CASE NO.:                22SMCV02275

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Further Responses

HEARING DATE:   7/26/2024

Legal Standard

            In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad. “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP § 2017.010; see Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301.) Section 2017.020(a) vests the Court with authority to limit the scope of discovery if the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of the discovery sought “clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  CCP § 2019.030 directs the Court to consider the needs of the case, amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and to consider whether the discovery being sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable by a more convenient or less expensive or less burdensome way, when deciding whether to restrict the frequency of extent of use of an authorized discovery method.

On receipt of a response to requests for admission the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an RFA is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2033.290(a)(2).) The responding party has the burden of justifying objections to discovery. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Analysis

In two separate motions, Plaintiff Regency Holt, LLC moves to compel Defendant Dahlia Fox and Defendant Avrohom Fox to provide their respective verified, code-compliant and objection-free further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (RFA), Set Three. Plaintiff also requests a monetary sanction of $1,010.00 per motion.

Plaintiff demonstrates that it served both defendants with the RFAs on April 8, 2024. (Ruttenberg Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendants provided identical objections-only with no substantive response. (Ruttenberg Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Defendants in order to receive code-compliant responses. (Ruttenberg Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendant responded by email requesting an extension for further responses of over one month from the date of receipt of Plaintiff’s letter. (Ruttenberg Decl. ¶ 5.)

RFAs nos. 1-3 6-9

Each request relates to Defendants’ application or receipt of rental assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that you applied for rent relief under the CA COVID-19 Rent Relief Program for your tenancy at 1237 S. Holt Ave., Unit 306, Los Angeles, CA 90035 (the “Premises”).

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that you received rental assistance under the CA COVID-19 Rent Relief Program (“Rental Assistance”).

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that you received the amount of or approximately $98,100 in Rental Assistance.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that you did not pay the Rental Assistance to Plaintiff for unpaid rent and utilities owed.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that you retained a portion of the money you received in Rental Assistance for your own account.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that you retained all of the money you received in Rental Assistance for your own account.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that you knew you were not the intended beneficiary of the Rental Assistance when you retained the payment for your own account.

As to these RFAs, Respondent objected “to the extent that it seeks confidential, trade secret, proprietary, financial, and/or commercially sensitive information. This information is privileged and/or confidential and it is protected from disclosure by applicable law. Respondent objects to this request on the ground that it invades the right of privacy guaranteed under Article I, Section I of the California Constitution to the individual(s) about whom it seeks information. It is also not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Defendants fail to justify any of their blanket objections. The requests appropriately pertain to affirmative defenses set forth in the answer. Plaintiff’s claim arises from alleged defaults on rent from April 2020 through March 2023. (FAC ¶10.) Defendants allegedly did not pay any rent as it came due during that period, and as of March, 31, 2023, they were delinquent in amount of $180,934.74. (Id.) Defendants have submitted an affirmative defense of “COVID-19,” claiming that rent demanded was properly delayed because they were “unable to pay due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic” and that Plaintiff’s demand rent due during the COVID-19 protection period. Plaintiff may therefore obtain discovery regarding Defendants purported inability to pay due to the pandemic, including whether Defendants obtained rental assistance. Defendants also do not cite any protected privacy interest or a serious intrusion to such an interest. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)

Accordingly, further responses are required.

RFA nos. 4-5

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that the Rental Assistance was required to be paid to Plaintiff for unpaid rent and utilities owed; and

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that you knew the Rental Assistance you received was required to be paid to Plaintiff for unpaid rent and utilities owed.

Respondent objected to these requests “to the extent that it seeks confidential, trade secret, proprietary, financial, and/or commercially sensitive information. This information is privileged and/or confidential and it is protected from disclosure by applicable law. Respondent objects to this request on the ground that it invades the right of privacy guaranteed under Article I, Section I of the California Constitution to the individual(s) about whom it seeks information. Respondent objects to this request on the ground that it calls for an impermissible expert opinion. It is also not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

The objections fail for the same reasons discussed above. Further responses are required.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further is GRANTED. Sanctions are mandatory and imposed in favor of Plaintiff in the noticed amounts: a) $1,010.00 against Defendant Dahlia Fox; and b) $1,010.00 against Defendant Avrohom Fox. Sanctions are to be paid within 30 days.

Further responses are ordered within 10 days.