Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2021-01229908, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Sean Clark, D.C. (“Clark”) moves to compel further responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, Nos. 13, 15, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 105, 116, and 117 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290.  Clark also seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,500.  In opposition, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Kamer Migirdichian (“Migirdichian”) requests $3,550 in monetary sanctions

“If the propounding party believes that the responses to RFAs are deficient in some respect or that any objections thereto are not well taken, he or she may make a motion to compel further responses under section 2033.290.”  (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.)  A motion to compel further may be brought if (1) “[a]n answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete” or (2) “[a]n objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a).)

Here, the Court finds that Clark’s use of the terms “partnership” and “property and equipment” are unclear as written.  Where Migirdichian failed to admit or deny the request, he either: (1) provided a qualified admission or denial as permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220(b)(1)-(2); and/or (2) stated that he lacks sufficient information or knowledge after a reasonable inquiry as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220(b)(3) and (c).  The court also finds that Request Nos. 105 and 106 are compound as written.

As such, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Sean Clark, D.C. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, Nos. 13, 15, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 105, 116, and 117 is DENIED in its entirety.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Kamer Migirdichian’s request for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290(d) is GRANTED in the amount of $3,550, which is due within 30 days of the notice of ruling.

Prevailing party to provide notice.