Judge Matthew C. Braner, Case Number: 37-2022-00038943-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00038943-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 30, 2024

05/31/2024 09:00:00 AM C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00038943-CU-PO-CTL SANCHEZ VS PIO PICO RV RESORT & CAMPGROUND [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff Johnny Sanchez's motions to compel Defendant MHC TT, L.P. ('MHC TT') and Defendant MHC Property Management, L.P. ('MHC Property')'s further responses to special interrogatories, set one, and requests for production, set one, are CONTINUED to June 28, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in this department.

Parties to appear if there is a problem with the proposed hearing date. Otherwise, the parties are ordered to meet in confer in light of the court's comments set forth below.

First, whether the court ultimately denies or grants the motions in whole or in part, it is not inclined to award sanctions.

Second, as to the motions to compel MHC TT's further responses, the court is inclined to find that further, code-compliant responses are warranted. However, the parties' filings indicate they have not engaged in any meet and confer discussion regarding MHC TT's responses.

MHC TT's responses to the special interrogatories ('SIs') improperly incorporate MHC Property's responses and do not indicate whether MHC TT lacks sufficient personal knowledge to respond fully to each interrogatory or has made 'a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(c); see also Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783-784.) Similarly, MHC TT's responses to the requests for production of documents ('RFPs') improperly incorporate MHC Property's responses and do not clearly state whether MHC TT will comply with each request in whole or in part or lacks the ability to comply. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a)(1)-(2).) Thus, to the extent MHC TT relies solely on contentions that MHC Property is the proper entity to address the discovery at issue, MHC TT's responses are deficient.

However, Plaintiffs' meet and confer correspondence only summarized and raised issues regarding MHC Property's discovery responses. (See ROA 65, O'Brien Decl., at Ex. A, pp. 1-3; ROA 73, at Moy Dec., Ex. 1, pp. 1-3.) There is no evidence Plaintiffs raised issues regarding MHC TT's discovery responses in their meet and confer correspondence or at any time prior to filing the instant motions.

Additionally, over one month before Plaintiffs filed the instant motions, Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' meet and confer correspondence indicates the parties have met and conferred 'regarding Plaintiffs Johnny and Lisa Sanchez's ('Plaintiffs') requests for MHC Property Management, LP's supplemental responses' to the discovery at issue. (ROA 73, at Moy Dec., Ex. 2, p. 1, emphasis added.) Thus, although code-compliant responses appear warranted, the motions to compel MHC TT's further responses are continued for the parties to meet and confer.

Third, as to the motions to compel MHC Property's further responses, MHC Property served verified Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3093688 23 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: SANCHEZ VS PIO PICO RV RESORT & CAMPGROUND [IMAGED] 37-2022-00038943-CU-PO-CTL supplemental responses to many of the SIs and RFPs at issue two weeks before Plaintiff filed the instant motions. (ROA 72, at Moy Dec., ¶¶ 6-9 and Exs. 5-6.) Although Plaintiff acknowledges receipt of verified supplemental responses in his moving papers, Plaintiff failed to include MHC Property's supplemental responses in his separate statements. Plaintiff's separate statements thus violate California Rule of Court 3.1345(c)(2)-(3), which require that separate statements include 'the text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers,' as well as the 'statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute.' Additionally, there is no evidence Plaintiff met and conferred to address MHC Property's supplemental responses prior to filing the instant motions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300(b)(1).) As a result, the parties' filings reflect that they have not engaged in a meaningful meet and confer discussion regarding the supplemental responses.

Nevertheless, the court declines MHC Property's request to deny Plaintiff's motions due to these procedural deficiencies. Instead, the court believes further meet and confer efforts are warranted for the parties to meet and confer on the previously served supplemental responses. To facilitate that discussion, the court notes it is inclined to find that: - Witnesses and documents as to complaints regarding Pio Pico's electrical system throughout the entire RV campgrounds (including complaints regarding electrical pedestals, electrical system failures, and electrical fires) are relevant to the subject matter, particularly as to Defendants' prior notice and knowledge of issues regarding Pio Pico's electrical system.

- Plaintiff's proposal to narrow the discovery requests to the time period of 2015 to the present is reasonable.

- RFP No. 10 seeking 'all photography of PIO PICO's electrical system' is overbroad on its face as it appears to include photographs of all electrical equipment and outlets, thus necessitating time consuming and overly burdensome inquiry into these photographs.

- RFP No. 34 is overbroad on its face given it is not limited to communications regarding complaints and/or maintenance of the electrical system.

- MHC Property's responses to SI nos. 2-6 are incomplete given MHC Property failed to provide the requested contact information for the individuals identified in these responses.

- To the extent MHC Property continues to withhold documents based on assertions of privilege, a privilege log must be provided to evaluate the merits of such objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240(c).) Accordingly, the court orders the parties to meet and confer by talking with each other – either in person, over the phone, or via videoconference – to address MHC TT's responses and the court's discussion regarding those responses. The parties are also ordered to meet and confer to address MHC Property's supplemental responses and the court's discussion regarding MHC Property's responses set forth above.

The court orders Plaintiff to file and serve a concise outline of what remains in dispute following meet and confer efforts, along with a supporting declaration, no later than 9 court days before the next hearing. Any response to the concise outline is due no later than 5 court days before the next hearing.

Parties should deliver a courtesy copy to chambers.

The Court also reminds the parties that it is available for informal discovery conferences, which can be scheduled during ex parte hours by calling the calendar clerk.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3093688 23