Judge: Michael Small, Case: 19STCV40504, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling
Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.
Case Number: 19STCV40504 Hearing Date: April 11, 2024 Dept: 57
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions 1-8
The motion is denied as moot.
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1
For each concurrently served request for admission to which Croft’s response was not an unqualified admission, Form interrogatory 17.1 asks Croft to “(b) state all facts upon which you base your response.”
In its Motion, Liberty seeks further responses to form interrogatory 17.1 as it relates to RFA Nos. 2-5, 7-8. In Reply, Liberty concedes that Croft’s verified supplemental responses on March 25, 2024 render this motion moot as they correspond to RFA Nos. 2-5 and 7.1 Liberty contends that Croft’s supplemental response to form interrogatory 17.1 as it relates to RFA No. 8 is still deficient. RFA No. 8 seeks Croft’s admission that he “received a total of $129,955 in [his] workers’ compensation case related to the INCIDENT.” The RFA defines “INCIDENT” as the “July 3, 2015 motor vehicle collision that is the subject of the CLAIM.” In addition to objecting, Croft’s verified supplemental response was as follows: “After a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in this request, Plaintiff lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the request, and on that basis denies.” (Supp. Ghalumyan Decl., ¶ 22, Ex. 30.)
Croft responded, inter alia, “Plaintiff further does not believe that he personally received a total of $129,955.00 related to his workers’ compensation claim.” (Id., ¶ 22, Ex. 28.) Liberty contends that this response is deficient because it fails to provide facts to support Croft’s denial of having received $129,955 in his workers’ compensation case.
Croft has submitted a Sur-Reply in which he contends that unverified responses are equivalent to no responses at all, so Liberty should have filed motions to compel instead of motions to compel further. Croft did not raise this argument in his Opposition. A sur-reply is not authorized. Because Croft does not address substantive issues in the Opposition, he necessarily failed to meet his burden to justify his failure to fully answer the subject interrogatory. The Court thus grants Liberty’s motion as to form interrogatory 17.1 and orders Croft to further respond as it corresponds to RFA No. 8. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents A motion for an order compelling further responses “shall set forth¿specific facts¿showing¿good cause¿justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove the fact or lead to other evidence that will. (Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) Cal.App.4th 216, 224.) If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.)
Liberty contends that notwithstanding Croft’s verified supplemental responses, they are deficient as to RFP Nos. 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, 44 and 46. Croft’s “Amended and Further Response to Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two” is missing responses to Nos. 35, 36 and 46. (Supp. Ghalumyan Decl., ¶ 22, Ex. 27.) RFP No. 33 seeks documents related to any treatment that Plaintiff received in connection with his alleged emotional and mental distress. I
RFP No. 35 requests “All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs that YOU are claiming as damages in this ACTION, including all attorney fee agreements, invoices, billings, ledgers, time records, and payment receipts for legal expenses YOU have incurred or paid.” RFP No. 36 requests “All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING the amount of damages YOU are seeking from LIBERTY, if any, for medical expenses incurred for treatment of injuries YOU sustained as a result of the INCIDENT.” RFP No. 39 seeks documents related to the amount of loss of earnings damages Plaintiff seeks in this action. RFP No. 46 requests “All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING YOUR trip to the Great Wall of China.”
As to RFP No. 35, Liberty cites Brandt v. Superior Court (1985) 37 Cal.3d 813, 817 in support of good cause for production of documents related to the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs Croft seeks as damages in this action. As to RFP Nos. 33, 36, and39. Liberty points to Croft’s allegation in his Complaint that he is seeking damages including medical expenses for the loss of benefit which Liberty denied. (Complaint, ¶ 19.) The Court finds that Liberty has met its burden to show good cause as to RFP Nos. 35, 36, and 39 as they are relevant to Croft’s damages. Croft’s Opposition basically fails to address these RFPs. As Croft has failed his shifted burden, the Court grants Liberty’s Motion as to RFP Nos. 33, 35, 36, and 39.
Finally, as to RFP Nos. 40, 42 and 44, Liberty contends that Croft has not produced documents in compliance with his agreement to “produce all relevant, non-privileged documents that are in her [sic] custody, possession or control.” However, the proper procedure is a motion to compelcompliance, not a motion to compel further response. The Motion as to RFP Nos. 40, 42 and 44 is denied without prejudice. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories The Court is still reviewing the issues related to this motion and is taking the motion under submission. In the main, however, it appears to the Court that Liberty has the better of the arguments here. Sanctions as to All Four Motions The Court declines to impose sanctions against Croft because in none of the notices of the four motions did Liberty state that it was seeking sanctions. The prospect for sanctions against Croft was addressed in Liberty's memoranda in support of the motions and on reply. But this is insufficient notice. It is a technicality. But it is one that precludes the imposition of sanctions. Croft's opposition requests monetary sanctions against Liberty and its counsel in the amount of $3,825 The Court denies Croft’s sanctions request because Liberty acted with substantial justification in filing the motions, which were granted in large part.