Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case 20STCV09803 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 20STCV09803, Date: 2023-01-18 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: January 18, 2023 Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 1/18/23

Case #20STCV09803

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Requests For Admissions, Set 5)

Motions filed on 11/23/22.

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 5, numbers 304-321. Additionally, Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant and/or her attorneys of record, Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar in the amount of $1,161.65.

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

This action arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on the southbound Antelope Valley Freeway State Route 14 on 1/31/19. 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 9/8/22, Plaintiffs served Defendant with Requests for Admission, Set 5. (Kahl Decl. ¶1, Ex.A). On 10/7/22, by electronic transmission, Defendant served responses which Plaintiffs found to be defective. (Id. ¶3, Ex.C). On 11/11/22, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a meet and confer letter regarding the responses; however, Defendant failed to respond. (Id. ¶¶4-5, Ex.D).

Therefore, on 11/23/22, Plaintiffs filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions, Set 5, numbers 304-321. Additionally, Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant and/or her attorneys of record, Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar in the amount of $1,161.65. An opposition to the motion was due to be filed and served on or before 12/23/22, 9 court days before the original 1/9/23 hearing date. CCP 1005(b). Because no opposition appeared in the court file, but a reply referring to an opposition had been filed, the hearing on the motion was continued to 1/18/23 to allow Defendant to file her opposition papers so that the Court could consider them before making a ruling on the merits of the motion. (See 1/9/23 Minute Order). On 1/9/23, Defendant filed her opposition papers as ordered by the Court.

The subject Requests for Admissions ask Defendant to admit or deny that she sent, received and exchanged text messages with her boss, Ryan Herrera, at specific times on the date of the accident. The Requests for Admissions were served because Defendant’s cell phone records show text messages were sent, received or exchanged around the time of the accident. (Kahl Decl. ¶2, Ex.B).

CCP 2033.220 provides:

“(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) Each answer shall:

(1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.

(2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue.

(3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.

(c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.”

On receipt of responses to requests for admissions, the propounding party may move to compel further responses if that party deems that an answer is evasive or incomplete or an objection is without merit or too general. CCP 2033.290(a)(1)-(2).

Defendant has provided evasive, non-code compliant responses to the Requests for Admissions at issue.

Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, she has not admitted Requests for Admissions 304, 307, 310, 313 and 319. These requests ask Defendant to admit or deny whether she received a text message at specific times on 1/31/19. For example, Request for Admission 304 asks Defendant to admit that:

“On January 31, 2019 at approximately 11:04 a.m., Lilian Yamileth Ramirez received a text message from Ryan Herrera from telephone number (818) 521-2809.”

In response to such requests Defendant states:

“Responding party does not have sufficient evidence as to admit or deny this request as written. Defendant admits that text messages were received from Ryan Herrera at telephone number (818) 521 – 2809 from 11:04 A.M. – 11:07 A.M. and from 11:50 A.M. – 11:51 A.M. on January 31, 2019. Defendant does not recall if the 11:04 A.M. text message was sent and, on that basis, responding party admits that Defendant received a text message at 11:04 A.M. from Ryan Herrera at telephone number (818) 521 – 2809 on January 31, 2019.”

Although these requests specifically ask Defendant if she received text messages from her boss, Ryan Herrera at specific times on 1/31/19, Defendant discusses other times and states that Defendant does not recall sending text messages. While the last part of the last sentence in the responses seems like Defendant is admitting these requests, the two preceding sentences and the beginning of the last sentence make the responses so unclear, it cannot be determined whether Defendant is claiming she does not have sufficient information to admit or deny, is admitting only a portion of the request or admitting the entire request. As such, the responses are not responsive and evasive.

Requests for Admissions 305, 306, 308, 309, 311, 312, 314, 315, 317, 318, 320 and 321 ask Defendant to admit or deny that Defendant sent or exchanged text messages at specific times on 1/31/19. For example, Request for Admission 305 asks Defendant to admit that:

“On January 31, 2019 at approximately 11:04 a.m., Lilian Yamileth Ramirez sent a text message to Ryan Herrera at telephone number (818) 521-2809.”

And, Request for Admission 306 asks Defendant to admit that:

“On January 31, 2019 at approximately 11:04 a.m., Lilian Yamileth Ramirez exchanged text messages with Ryan Herrera at telephone number (818) 521-2809.”

In response to such requests, Defendant states:

“Responding party does not have sufficient evidence as to admit or deny this request as written. Defendant admits that text messages were received from (818) 521 – 2809 from 11:04 A.M. – 11:07 A.M. and from 11:50 – 11:51 A.M. on January 31, 2019. Defendant does not recall if the 11:04 A.M. text message was sent and, on that basis, Defendant denies that she sent text message to Ryan Herrera to telephone number (818) 521 – 2809 at 11:04 A.M. on January 31, 2019.”

Such a response does not respond to each of the specific requests posed as it references time frames not mentioned in each of the requests which makes the responses evasive and unclear. Additionally, Defendant argues that she is unable to admit or deny whether she sent or exchanged any text messages. (See Opposition, p.5:27-28). However, the responses to the above-mentioned requests state that because Defendant does not recall sending text messages at specific times, she denies the requests. Defendant cannot claim that she lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the specific request and then deny the request. The Court notes that in response to the Requests for Admissions (numbers 306, 309, 312, 315, 318 and 321) which use the term “exchange,” Defendant also contends that term is vague and ambiguous. Defendant has failed to justify that “objection.” Regardless, the Court finds it to be without merit.

Defendant seemingly attempts to assert a new, untimely objection in the opposition by arguing that the Requests for Admissions at issue seek irrelevant information. This argument is based on the fact that the accident occurred at 11:35 a.m. and the requests concern text messages that were sent or received from 11:04 a.m. – 11:07 a.m. and from 11:50 – 11:51 a.m. Plaintiffs are entitled to “obtain discovery regarding any matter not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that 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. Based on Defendant’s deposition testimony, these requests are relevant to Defendant’s speed at the time of the accident and whether she was distracted at or around the time of the accident because she was texting while driving. Defendant’s reliance on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than applicable California law, to support her relevance argument is misplaced. (See Opposition, p.7:5-13).

Defendant’s argument that the motion should be denied because Plaintiffs have purportedly propounded “too much discovery” in this case is also misplaced in response to the instant motion. If Defendant believed that the declaration supporting Requests for Admission in excess of 35 was insufficient, she should have challenged such when the requests were propounded. (See Opposition, p.4:9-10). Similarly, if Defendant believed that other discovery requests served by Plaintiffs were not warranted or an abuse of the discovery process, she should have moved for a protective order as provided for in the discovery statutes.

Plaintiffs are entitled to sanctions against Defendant and her attorneys of record, Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar in the reasonable amount of $1,161.65 for the time and expense related to this motion (2 hours at the hourly rate of $550/hour + $61.65 filing fee). CCP 2033.290(d); (Kahl Decl. ¶6).

Finally, Plaintiffs’ counsel is, again, 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). Plaintiffs have failed to bookmark the declaration and exhibits attached to the motion. (See 8/30/22 Minute Order). Continued failure to comply with these requirements 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.