Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV30039, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30039    Hearing Date: October 26, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 26, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(2) Motions to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Plaintiff Arina Builders

Responding Party: Defendant Robert Haro

T/R:    PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. THE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

            PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP 2030.300(a)(3).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the form interrogatories (“FIs”) and special interrogatories (“SIs”).  (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

On receipt of a response to requests for admission (“RFAs”) 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).)

Plaintiff moves to compel further response to RFAs, set two, and FIs, set two, no. 17.1, from Defendant Haro. Defendant served objections to the RFAs and the FI on March 29, 2022. After much back and forth over email, the parties attended an informal discovery conference. Plaintiff asserts Defendant agreed to serve further responses by September 12, 2022. Plaintiff represents that it did not receive further responses.

Defendant contends that the RFAs are compound. Defendant also argues that many improperly request that Defendant state the genuineness of documents. In reply, Plaintiff asserts that these objections are boilerplate and argues that Defendant already agreed to provide further responses.

The RFAs that ask only for Defendant to admit that an attached document is a true and correct copy of a particular document are appropriate and must be answered. The remaining RFAs and requests are compound and vague. They ask Defendant to admit or deny broad, general statements, and they contain more than one statement of fact. That Defendant “agreed” to provide further response does not change the analysis of this motion. The Court will not compel responses to improper discovery requests.

The Court declines to award sanctions.

Plaintiff’s motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.