Judge Richard S. Whitney, Case 37-2022-00003923-CU-MC-CTL 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2022-00003923-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 07, 2023

09/08/2023 10:30:00 AM C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Misc Complaints - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00003923-CU-MC-CTL GATEWAY STERLING LLC VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFF GATEWAY STERLING'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1 AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS is GRANTED, in part.

Plaintiff GATEWAY STERLING, LLC seeks to compel Defendant County of San Diego ('Defendant') to provide further responses to Form Interrogatory number 15.1, which seeks information as to Defendant's denials and affirmative defenses.

Defendant first objects based on Plaintiff's separate statement being inadequate. The Court declines to deny the motion on that ground given that the issues are adequately addressed in the papers and this department permits concise outlines without court order. Defendant also asserts no further discovery should be required because this action is supposed to be determined on the administrative alone.

Defendant cites Maples v. Kern County Assessment Appeals Bd. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1007 where it states '[t]he court may overturn the assessment appeals board's decision only if there is no substantial evidence in the administrative record to support it.' (Id. at 1013.) The preceding sentence states '[w]here the taxpayer claims a valid valuation method was improperly applied, the trial court is limited to reviewing the administrative record.' (Id.) Plaintiff asserts the primary challenge is to the validity of the valuation methodology utilized by the Assessor and adopted by the Assessment Appeals Board ('AAB') such that it is a question of law. 'When the assessor utilizes an approved valuation method, his factual findings and determinations of value based upon the appropriate assessment method are presumed to be correct and will be sustained if supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.] However, where the taxpayer attacks the validity of the valuation method itself, the issue becomes a question of law subject to de novo review.' (SHC Half Moon Bay, LLC v. County of San Mateo (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 471, 486 [Citation and quotes omitted].) '[I]n the trial court, when the taxpayer challenges the method of valuation used by the tax assessor, the issue is a legal one and the trial court 'is not restricted to the transcript of the proceedings before the board, but may receive additional evidence bearing on the legal question.'' (Sky River LLC v. County of Kern (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 720, 738 [Citation omitted].) It appears that Defendant characterizes Plaintiff's challenge as one of an improper application of valuation methodology used by the Assessor whereas Plaintiff asserts the challenge is to the methodology itself. The Court accepts Plaintiff's position such that Plaintiff is not limited to the administrative record.

Defendant points to the presumption it enjoys. 'The actions of the assessing authorities are clothed with Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2949882 51 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: GATEWAY STERLING LLC VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED]

37-2022-00003923-CU-MC-CTL a presumption of correctness and regularity. They will not be disturbed if there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support them.' (Jones v. County of Los Angeles (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 999, 1003.) However, '[i]f contrary evidence is introduced then the presumption has no further effect and the matter must be determined on the evidence presented.' (Farr v. County of Nevada (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 669, 682 [Citation and quotes omitted].) Given Plaintiff asserts the assessment was the result of an improper method of valuation, Plaintiff may present evidence beyond the administrative record to controvert the presumption of correctness. Further, it appears information related to Defendant's affirmative defenses could be found outside the administrative record such that the interrogatory does not exceed the scope of permissible discovery.

Finally, Defendant mentions that Plaintiff is potentially seeking privileged information that is protected by the deliberative process privilege. Plaintiff clearly states it is not seeking privileged information. Even if Defendant were correct, then Defendant would have the burden of providing information as to what information was withheld based on assertions of privilege, but Defendant has not done so. 'Since the claim of privilege is an affirmative objection to a request for material otherwise discoverable, the burden of proving the same is on the party making that claim.' (Brotsky v. State Bar of Cal. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 287, 303.) 'If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240(c)(1).) Defendant makes no showing that it provided 'sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.' The motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses within fourteen (14) days. No sanctions are awarded.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2949882 51