Judge: Michael T. Smyth, Case: 37-2022-00016478-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-05-14 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 09, 2024

05/10/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael T. Smyth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00016478-CU-PO-CTL HEIDKAMP VS PROSPECT HOSPITALITY LP [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 03/04/2024

Defendant and Cross-Complainant City of San Diego's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (ROA 124), Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One (ROA 129), and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two are GRANTED. The court finds that Cross-Defendant Prospect's objections were without substantial justification. Sanctions are imposed in the reduced amount of $1,218.75 for all three motions against Prospect Hospitality LP and its attorneys of record, jointly and severally. Sanctions are to be paid within 90 days.

In response to RFA Nos. 1-13, Prospect neither admitted or denied any of the subject matter and instead only objected. Prospect argues that the City failed to properly meet and confer on the issues, engage with the objections, or specify the legal reasons for compelling further responses. But the City's separate statement specifically stated with respect to every response, that the 'response is evasive because it is non-responsive and the objections lack merit.' (See, e.g., ROA 131, RFA Separate Statement.) While not particular to each objection, this is sufficient for purposes of compliance with the California Rules of Court, particularly when the objections do lack merit. While the court finds that a reasonable interpretation of the definition of 'YOU' should be inferred, it clarifies that this refers only to those acting at the direction of Cross-Defendant Prospect Hospitality, LP-not merely some third party who performed some act on behalf of Cross-Defendant. In any case, Cross-Defendant should at least have produced documents from Prospect itself. Because the court overrules Prospect's objections, further responses are also due with respect to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.

Cross-Defendant's objections to the RFPs are similarly without merit. Terms such as 'relating to' or 'due diligence' are not ambiguous. A privilege log is required for all documents where a privilege is claimed other than for documents between Prospect and its attorneys regarding this litigation or in preparation for this litigation.

Further responses are due within 20 days.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3094505  2