Judge: Michael C. Kelley, Case: 21AVCV00731, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21AVCV00731    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: A15

Background

This action was filed by Plaintiffs Maria Fletcher and Charles Fletcher, who are the respective mother and stepfather to Defendant Wayne Lucchese. The dispute pertains to the real property located at 42915 Victorville Place, in the City of Lancaster (the “Property”). (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 8.) After two demurrers, the only remaining cause of action is for quiet title.

On June 17, 2022, Defendant filed the instant discovery motions. Although they were timely filed and served, Plaintiffs have not opposed them.

Analysis

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery— When a propounding party has received an incomplete response, or a meritless or overly general objection to an interrogatory, the propounding party may file a motion to compel further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) The motion must include a meet and confer declaration and a separate statement. (Id., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) 

The same motion to compel further responses is available to a party who has propounded requests for admission, and received objections that are “without merit or too general,” or responses which are evasive or incomplete (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a)(2)); and to a party who has propounded demands for production, and received an incomplete statement of compliance, an inadequate representation of inability to comply, or a meritless objection. (Code Civ. Proc., §2031.310, subd. (a).)

Here, Defendant has filed omnibus motions to compel further responses from both plaintiffs to his Form Interrogatory 17.1; Requests for Admission Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 48, 49, 50, and 51; and Requests for Production Nos. 1 through 49.

Form Interrogatory No. 17.1: This interrogatory asks if the recipient’s response to each accompanying Request for Admission is an unqualified admission. If the responses are not unqualified admissions, the recipient must state the facts upon which he or she bases his or her response.

Both plaintiffs answered “yes,” their responses are unqualified admissions.

However, Plaintiffs did not make unqualified admissions to each Request for Admission. Therefore, they must either supplement their responses to the Requests for Admission, so that they are indeed unqualified admissions; or, they must supplement their response to this form interrogatory, to include the facts that support their responses to the Requests for Admission.

The motions are GRANTED as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1

Requests for Admission: Defendant has moved for further responses to his Requests for Admission, because the responses he identified in his motion (Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 48, 49, 50, and 51) are all “conditional” admissions or “conditional” denials.

Defendant correctly argues that Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220 permits only responses that admit, deny, or state that a reasonable inquiry was made and the party lacks sufficient information to admit the matter. Nothing in the code provides for “conditional” admissions or denials.

Therefore, the motions are GRANTED as to the Requests for Admission.

Requests for Production: A party who receives a demand for production, i.e., a demand for inspection, copying, testing, etc. must respond separately to each individual item requested with either a statement indicating compliance, a statement that the party lacks the ability to comply, or an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

If the response is one of an inability to comply, it “shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

Plaintiffs’ responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1 through 12, 16, 18 through 36, 38 through 43, and 45 through 49 identify the responsive documents, but do not explicitly indicate whether they will comply with the demand. Thus, the responses are technically deficient and should be supplemented.

However, Plaintiffs’ responses to Nos. 13, 14, 15, 17, 37, and 44 state that they are unable to comply because, after “looking through records,” the responsive documents “cannot be located.” The implication is that Plaintiffs made a “diligent search,” but the responsive documents are “lost” or “misplaced.” Such responses are substantially compliant with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230, and are therefore sufficient.

The motions are GRANTED as to Requests for Production Nos. 1 through 12, 16, 18 through 36, 38 through 43, and 45 through 49. They are DENIED as to Nos. 13, 14, 15, 17, 37, and 44.

Conclusion

The Motion to Compel Plaintiff Maria Fletcher’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production, and Sanctions and the Motion to Compel Plaintiff Charles Fletcher’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, Requests for Production, and Sanctions are GRANTED as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, the Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production Nos. 1 through 12, 16, 18 through 36, 38 through 43, and 45 through 49.