Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case 20STCV09803 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 20STCV09803, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 20STCV09803 Hearing Date: August 30, 2022 Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 8/30/22 TRIAL DATE: 1/30/23

Case #20STCV09803

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, Set 3)

Motions filed on 5/31/22.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Jaime Garrido, Nilda Garrido, Mavinelle Garrido and Audrey DeGuzman

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Lilian Yamileth Ramirez

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Lilian Yamileth Ramirez (Defendant) to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions, Set 3, numbers 83-86, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107 and 108. Additionally, Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant and/or her attorneys of record, Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar in the amount of $1,111.65.

RULINGS: The motion is granted. Further responses are due and sanctions are payable within 30 days.

The parties are reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. See also CRC 3.1110(f)(4). While it appears that Plaintiffs have attempted to bookmark the motion, the bookmarks in the motion are not linked to the sections of the table of contents, the declaration, exhibits and proof of service. The bookmarks in the reply are properly linked. Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

This action arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on the southbound Antelope Valley Freeway State Route 14. The vehicle driven by Defendant Lilian Yamileth Ramirez (Defendant) struck the vehicle occupied by Plaintiffs Jaime Garrido, Nilda Garrido, Mavinelle Garrido and Audrey DeGuzman (Plaintiffs) while their vehicle was stopped near the center median. The traffic collision report attributes fault for the collision to Defendant. Plaintiffs allege they were injured as a result of the collision and filed this action to recover their damages. Defendant answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint for apportionment of fault, declaratory relief and indemnification against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Jaime Garrido and Roes 1-50.

On 7/1/21, Plaintiffs served Defendant with Requests for Admission, Set 3. On 8/16/21, Defendant served unverified responses. On 8/18/21, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a meet and confer letter regarding the unverified responses. On 8/23/21, Defendant’s counsel requested an additional week to provide verifications for the responses which was granted making verifications due 8/30/21. Defendant failed to serve the verifications as agreed. Therefore, Plaintiffs filed a motion to deem the Requests for Admissions admitted.

On 3/10/22, Defendant provided further, verified responses to the discovery. Plaintiffs found Defendant’s responses to certain of the Requests for Admissions to be deficient. Pursuant to mutual extensions, on 5/31/22, Plaintiffs filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions, Set 3, numbers 83-86, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107 and 108. Additionally, Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant and/or her attorneys of record, Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar in the amount of $1,111.65. Defendant has opposed the motion and has requested $1,440.00 in sanctions against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel of record.

The Requests for Admission at issue concern Plaintiffs’ claims of injury, liability and causation regarding: (1) Injuries sustained in the first impact with the K-Rail (center divider), by Jaime Garrido, Nilda Garrido, and Mavinelle Garrido. (RFAs, Nos. 83-85); (2) Sufficiency of tread depth of the tires on Defendant’s vehicle at the time of collision (RFA No. 86); (3) Cervical fracture of C7 prior to the collision by Jamie Garrido (RFA No. 92); (4) Pre-existing injuries to any areas of body allegedly injured in the collision by Nilda Garrido, Mavinelle Garrido and Audrey DeGuzman (RFA Nos. 94, 98, 102); (5) Prior complaints as to any areas of the body allegedly injured in the collision by Nilda Garrido, Mavinelle Garrido and Audrey DeGuzman (RFA Nos. 96, 100, 104); and (6) Failure to mitigate damages by Jaime Garrido, Nilda Garrido, Mavinelle Garrido and Audrey DeGuzman (RFA Nos. 105-108).

On 3/10/22, Defendant provided the following further response as to each of the Requests for Admissions at issue:

Objection. Vague, and ambiguous, and overly broad. Lacks foundation and calls for speculation. Assumes facts not in evidence. This request calls for a legal conclusion and expert opinion. This request seeks an expert opinion from a lay witness. Subject to and without waiving said objections, after a reasonable inquiry, information known and readily available is insufficient to either admit or deny.

In response to Request for Admission 86, Defendant also added that “Discovery is ongoing.”

Each answer to a request for admission must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. CCP 2033.220(a). Defendant does not dispute: (1) that she has conducted medical examinations of Plaintiffs Jaime and Nilda Garrido, (2) that she has taken the depositions of all Plaintiffs, (3) that the medical histories of all Plaintiffs claiming injuries in the collision have been produced, (4) that Plaintiffs have provided written responses to discovery and (5) that Defendant’s expert was present at a vehicle inspection of Defendant’s vehicle. (See Khoshnou Decl. ¶¶22-27). As such, the evidence indicates that the information available is sufficient for Defendant to admit or deny the subject Requests for Admissions.

A party “cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo (1979) 84 CA3d 771, 782. Furthermore, it is improper to simply object to a request for admission on the basis that it calls for an expert opinion. Chodos (1963) 215 CA2d 318, 322-323; See also Hillman (1968) 263 CA2d 848, 887 (“since admission requests are made for the purpose of expediting the trial, the ‘fact that the request is for the admission of a controversial matter, or one involving complex facts, or calls for an opinion, is of no moment’” citing Cembrook (1961) 56 C2d 423, 429). Therefore, Defendant’s argument that her further responses served on 3/10/22 are code compliant because expert witness discovery has not begun is without merit. Defendant has also failed to justify the remainder of her objections to the subject requests for admissions.

Defendant has made assertions in her answer and cross-complaint regarding Plaintiffs’ alleged negligence, Plaintiffs’ responsibility for causing their injuries and damages and Plaintiffs’ failure to mitigate damages. As such, Plaintiffs are entitled to know whether Defendant has any evidence to support such claims and defenses.

Plaintiffs are entitled to sanctions against Defendant and her counsel Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar, in the amount of $1,111.65 (2 hours to prepare motion + 1 hour to review opposition and prepare reply multiplied by $350/hour + $61.65 filing fee) for their failure to comply with their discovery obligations. CCP 2033.290(d).