Judge: Olga Alvarez, Case: 37-2022-00043361-PR-TR-CTL, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

CENTRAL COURTHOUSE TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 05, 2023

09/06/2023  10:30:00 AM  503 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Olga Alvarez

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Probate  Trust Proceedings Discovery Hearing (Probate) 37-2022-00043361-PR-TR-CTL IN THE MATTER OF BRETT AND KATHY WRIGHT FAMILY TRUST DATED 4-23-2002 CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 05/25/2023

Pursuant to Superior Court of San Diego County Local Rules, rule 4.23.7, the court's tentative ruling is as follows: The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One, filed by W. Michael Wright, Trustee/Respondent, is GRANTED in part as to Request Nos. 2, 3-5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, subject to a protective order. The motion is DENIED in part as to Request Nos. 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 15, 16 as moot, and No. 7 as overbroad.

The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Petitioner Valerie J. Van Wieren's Request for Judicial Notice (ROA 41) is GRANTED.

I. Background The petition involves the Brett and Kathy Wright Family Trust dated April 23, 2002. Petitioner Valerie J.

Van Wieren (Petitioner) was married to Brett Wright from July 27, 2017, through June 23, 2023, when Brett passed away.

On October 27, 2022, Petitioner filed a Petition to Determine Entitlement to Share of Decedent's Estate as an omitted spouse. (ROA 1.) On January 17, 2023, W. Michael Wright, Trustee/Respondent, filed objections to the petition. (ROA 12.) On May 25, 2023, Trustee filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One, Nos. 1-16, and for $6,379.50 in sanctions pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.010 et seq. and 2031.310.

(ROA 24.) Trustee represents that on February 19, 2023, Petitioner served her responses to his demand for inspection, but the responses are deficient, consisting of evasive or incomplete answers and meritless objections.

On August 23, 2023, Petitioner filed an opposition to the motion, arguing the scope of discovery as framed by Trustee is overbroad, particularly considering that some of the affirmative defenses are legally precluded. (ROA 41.) However, Petitioner concedes the merits of the motion as to some of the requests as discussed further below.

On August 29, 2023, Trustee filed his reply. (ROA 46.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2981344 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  IN THE MATTER OF BRETT AND KATHY WRIGHT FAMILY TRUST  37-2022-00043361-PR-TR-CTL II. Discussion Trustee argues good cause exists to compel further responses to the inspection demands because the responses are inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. Petitioner's responses fail to comply with the requirements of a proper response to inspection demands, and the objections are general, meritless, boiler plate responses.

In opposition, Petitioner argues her responses to the 16 document demands fall into three basic categories: (1) the demands to which Petitioner agreed to provide responsive documents notwithstanding her objections: Nos. 1, 15, and 16; (2) the demands to which Petitioner stated no responsive documents existed or were within her possession, custody, or control notwithstanding her objections: Nos. 2, 6, 10, and 11; and (3) the demands to which Petitioner responded with objections only: Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 14.

Petitioner proposes that as to Request Nos. 1, 15, and 16, she will provide responsive documents on or before the hearing on the instant motion to compel.

As to Request Nos. 2, 6, 10, and 11, Petitioner concedes the responses were not code-compliant and states 'the Court should grant Respondent's motion to compel further responses to these inspection demands. Valerie will provide further responses to these inspection demands on or before the hearing date on Respondent's motion to compel production of documents.' (ROA 41, Oppo. at p. 15.) As to Request No. 9, Petitioner states counsel 'was too hasty in objecting only. This demand is arguably relevant to one or more of Respondent's valid defenses under Probate Code section 21611. Accordingly, the Court should grant Respondent's motion to compel a further response to inspection demand No. 9 only.' (Ibid.) As to Request Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14, Petitioner argues these should be denied because the inspection demands are outside the permissible scope of discovery under the circumstances.

Here, Petitioner states she will provide responsive documents to Request Nos. 1, 15, and 16, before the hearing on the motion. Further, as to Requests Nos. 2, 6, 9, 10, and 11, Petitioner concedes the responses are inadequate and will provide further responses. Thus, as to Request Nos. 1, 15, and 16, the motion is moot. As to Request Nos. 2, 6, 9, 10, and 11, the motion is GRANTED.

That leaves Request Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, and 14. Request Nos. 3, 4, and 5 relate to real property located at 1501 Lower Lake Court, Cardiff by the Sea, California. Trustee alleges this property was Petitioner's separate property, but decedent lived at this residence and paid rent during his stay.

Petitioner and decedent also jointly reported income, expenses, and depreciation related to this property. A such, the discovery demands are relevant to several issues, including what was provided for Petitioner outside of decedent's trust, off-sets, gifts, and any comingling of separate and community property assets. Thus, the Court finds no merit in Petitioner's objections.

Petitioner's arguments that some of Trustee's affirmative defenses are precluded by law are beyond the scope of this motion. The standard for discovery is broad. Trustee is entitled to discovery of matters that are relevant and material to the litigation and reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence. Thus, the motion is GRANTED as to Request Nos. 3, 4, and 5.

As to Request No. 7, the demand is overbroad in that it seeks 'ALL DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any communications YOU had with any individual related to 1501 Lower Lake Court...' (ROA 25, Separate Statement, Request No. 7, at p. 11.) Thus, persons unrelated to the lawsuit and with no relevant information/documents would be covered under this demand. Therefore, the motion is DENIED as to Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2981344 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  IN THE MATTER OF BRETT AND KATHY WRIGHT FAMILY TRUST  37-2022-00043361-PR-TR-CTL Request No. 7.

As to Request Nos. 8, 12, 13, and 14, these seek documents regarding Petitioner's estate plans, any money given to Petitioner by decedent, bank accounts where Petitioner held funds considered separate property, and gifts given to Petitioner by decedent, from the year of her marriage to decedent through the time of his death. As such, the documents sought are relevant to the issues in the litigation and whether Petitioner is entitled to any share of the decedent's trust. Thus, the motion is GRANTED as to Request Nos. 8, 12, 13, and 14.

Trustee's request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. The Court finds Petitioner acted with substantial justification in responding to Trustee's discovery demands.

Counsel for W. Michael Wright is directed to serve notice of this ruling in accordance with the provisions of CCP § 1019.5(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2981344