Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case 20STCV09803 2022-09-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 20STCV09803, Date: 2022-09-02 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: September 2, 2022 Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 9/2/22 TRIAL DATE: 1/30/23

Case #20STCV09803

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Form Interrogatories, Set 4)

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 verified code compliant further responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set 4, number 17.1. 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 Form Interrogatories, Set 4. 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. On 9/28/21, Plaintiffs filed a motion regarding the responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 4, including Form Interrogatory 17.1.

On 3/10/22, Defendant provided further, verified responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1, which consisted solely of objections. On 3/25/22, the Court ordered Defendant to provide responses without objections, to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatory, Set 4, number 17.1 within 30 days. On 4/25/22, Defendant provided an unverified second further response to Form Interrogatory, Set 4, number 17.1. On 5/6/22 and 5/17/22, Plaintiffs sent meet and confer letters requesting verifications to which they received no response.

Therefore, on 5/31/22, Plaintiffs filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant to provide verified code compliant further responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set 4, number 17.1. 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 requested sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel.

The opposition to the motion concedes that Defendant violated this Court’s 3/25/22 order as Defendant states that verifications to the further responses were not provided to Plaintiffs until 8/10/22, well beyond the 30-day deadline set forth in the Court’s 3/25/22 order. (See Opposition, p.3:3-6; Lawrence Decl. ¶5; 3/25/22 Minute Order, p.10). Defense counsel then accuses Plaintiffs and their counsel of abuse of the discovery process for proceeding with the motion because defense counsel was having difficulty obtaining the verification from Defendant. (See Lawrence Decl. ¶¶6-7; Opposition, p.3:7-p.4:6). Based on the foregoing, Defendant argues that the Court should deny the motion and Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions. However, in the reply, Plaintiffs’ counsel denies that they were informed of such difficulties and note that they took Defendant’s deposition on 3/29/22. Defendant never addresses the substance of the further responses which the motion argues are deficient, even if verifications were provided.

Form Interrogatory 17.1 asks:

Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission:

(a) State the number of the request;

(b) State all facts upon which you base your response;

(d) Identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT OR THING.

In response to subsections (b)-(d) of Form Interrogatory 17.1 in relation to the underlying Requests for Admissions, Defendant has responded:

(b) The information known and readily available is insufficient to either admit or deny. Plaintiff is continuing treatment, depositions of physicians ongoing, expert’s discovery has not been completed.

(d) Plaintiff’s medical records. Discovery is ongoing.

The response is not as complete and straightforward as the information readily available permits. For example, in response to subsection (c), Defendant fails to properly identify Plaintiff’s treating physicians and in response to subsection (d), Defendant vaguely refers to “Plaintiff’s medical records” without specifying which records among the many pages of records provided.

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 2030.300(d).

Dept. F-47

Date: 9/1/22 TRIAL DATE: 1/30/23

Case #20STCV09803

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Form Interrogatories, 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’ Form Interrogatories, Set 3, number 17.1. 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 (if further responses to underlying Requests for Admissions are not an unqualified admission) and sanctions are payable within 30 days.

On 7/1/21, Plaintiffs served Defendant with Form Interrogatories, 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. On 9/28/21, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 3, including Form Interrogatory 17.1.

On 3/10/22, Defendant provided further, verified responses to the discovery. Plaintiffs found Defendant’s responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1 in relation to Requests for Admissions, Set 3, numbers 83-86, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107 and 108 to be deficient. The parties were unable to resolve the issues, therefore, on 5/31/22, Plaintiffs filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set 3, number 17.1. 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 underlying Requests for Admission 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.”

Form Interrogatory 17.1 asks:

Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission:

(a) State the number of the request;

(b) State all facts upon which you base your response;

(d) Identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT OR THING.

In response to Form Interrogatory 17.1(b)-(d), with regard to the underlying Requests for Admissions, Defendant has given the same further response as she provided to the Requests for Admissions:

With the addition of “Discovery is ongoing” in response to Form Interrogatory 17.1(b)-(d) as to Request for Admission 86.

Each answer to an interrogatory must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. CCP 2030.220(a). If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, the responding party must answer to the extent possible and “shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information.” CCP 2030.220(b), (c). As noted in the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to the underlying Requests for Admissions, Defendant’s responses to those requests are deficient.

Similarly, Defendants response to corresponding Form Interrogatory 17.1(b)-(d) in relation to those Requests for Admissions is also insufficient. If Defendant does not provide an unqualified admission to the underlying Requests for Admissions in a further response, Plaintiffs are entitled to know what evidence supports Defendant’s responses to requests for admissions. In such case, a further response will then be required.