Judge Robert C. Longstreth, Case Number: 37-2022-00037420-CU-NP-CTL, Date: 2024-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2022-00037420-CU-NP-CTL, Date: 2024-06-04 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 03, 2024

06/04/2024 02:00:00 PM C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00037420-CU-NP-CTL CASTILLO VS CASTILLO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 09/27/2023

Defendant's request for judicial notice of the court's minute order is GRANTED. (Evid. Code � 452(d).) Defendant's other requests for judicial notice are DENIED; discovery requests and responses are not proper subjects of judicial notice as they are not part of the court's record. These other requests are moot anyway, since Plaintiff's Separate Statement (ROA 93) fully sets forth the discovery requests and responses at issue in this motion.

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (ROA 88) is GRANTED.

The only interrogatory at issue in the motion is Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, which requires Defendant to provide, for each response to Plaintiff's requests for admission that is not an unqualified admission, to provide the following information: '(a) State the number of the request; (b) State all facts upon which you base your response; (c) State the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) Identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.' Defendant argues he is not required to further respond to the Form Interrogatories because Plaintiff's operative Complaint at the time the interrogatories were served was the Second Amended Complaint, which the court has now stricken. As Defendant's own opposition brief makes clear, the discovery requests refer to the 'operative complaint.' The court notes Defendant has already reserved two hearings and filed papers for a Demurrer and Motion to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. In other words, the parties are treating the First Amended Complaint as Plaintiff's operative pleading in light of the court's ruling striking Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. To the extent there is any confusion on this point, the court deems Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint as Plaintiff's operative pleading in light of the court's ruling striking Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Further, the court notes there is no substantive difference between Plaintiff's stricken Second Amended Complaint and Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; the parties, factual allegations, and causes of action are identical. Thus, there is no basis for Defendant to assert the change in the 'operative complaint' from the time the form interrogatories were served on him to the time the court struck the Second Amended Complaint would impact his responses to the interrogatories, nor is there any legal basis for Defendant to assert the form interrogatories are now moot.

Defendant argues over the meaning of the phrase 'unqualified admission.' This phrase is not vague or ambiguous, as would be expected since it appears in a form approved by the Judicial Council of California for use in precisely the way that Plaintiff has used it in this action. The phrase means that any Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3135792 9 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: CASTILLO VS CASTILLO [IMAGED] 37-2022-00037420-CU-NP-CTL response, other than the word 'Admit' without a qualifier, requires Defendant to provide the information requested in subdivisions (a) through (d) of Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. Any suggestion that Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's requests for admission could somehow be deemed 'unqualified admissions' if that term were further defined is particularly frivolous in this instance, since Defendant denied every request.

Defendant asserts Plaintiff failed to support the excess requests for admission with a declaration. Where a party makes more than 35 requests for admission not relating to the genuineness of documents, the additional discovery must be supported by a declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. � 2033.050.) On reply, Plaintiff provided a copy of the declaration confirming Plaintiff did comply with this requirement. In any event, given that Defendant responded to all of 51 of Plaintiff's requests for admissions by denying them, Defendant's argument that the discovery is excessive, and thus that he should not be required to explain his denials in response to Form Interrogatory 17.1, is waived.

Defendant makes irrelevant arguments regarding the appointment of Gina Castillo as Plaintiff's guardian ad litem. These arguments have nothing to do with the motion before the court. Regardless, Gina Castillo has been Plaintiff's court-appointed guardian ad litem since October 10, 2022. (ROA 9.) The concerns the court raised on December 29, 2023 about the appointment have been addressed by Plaintiff's counsel to the court's satisfaction.

Defendant's responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1 are evasive, incomplete, and do not contain a single meritorious objection. (Code Civ. Proc. � 2030.300(a)(1) and (3).) Moreover, Defendant's improper decision to have a single response to the Form Interrogatory cover each of his 51 denials of the requests for admission makes the responses all but useless.

Therefore, as to each denial of each request, Defendant is required to respond, separately as to each request for admission, and without objection, to subdivisions (a) through (d) of Form Interrogatory No.

17. Defendant is ordered to serve such verified further responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1 on or before July 5, 2024.

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,510.00. 'The court shall impose a monetary sanction...

against any party... who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.' (Code Civ. Proc. � 2030.300(d).) The court finds Defendant did not act with substantial justification in opposing this motion, and thus sanctions are warranted.

Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $2,510.00 to Plaintiff on or before July 5, 2024.

Once confirmed, this ruling shall be the final ruling of the court and no further written order is required.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3135792 9