Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV00362, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00362    Hearing Date: March 20, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling 

HEARING DATE:                 March 20, 2024 

CASE NUMBER:                  22TRCV00362

CASE NAME:                        Catherine M. Herrera v. Darlene Agarwala, et al.   

MOVING PARTY:                (1) Defendants, Darlene Agarwala, Pronita Ann Agarwala, Stephen Miro, Gregory Mollner, and Sabina Agarwala-Miro

RESPONDING PARTY:       (1) Plaintiffs, Paul Herrera and Catherine M. Herrera

TRIAL DATE:                       April 7, 2025

MOTION:                              (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One to Plaintiff, Paul Herrera

                                                (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One to Plaintiff, Paul Herrera

                                                (3) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One to Plaintiff, Paul Herrera

                                                (4) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Requests for Admission to Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Paul Herrera

                                                (5) Requests for Sanctions

                                                (6) Stipulation to continue the April 8, 2024 trial

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) (2), (3) CONTINUED to April 17, 2024.  Some of the subject Form Rogs and RFPs directly relate to RFAs as to which the Court is granting the motion to compel, which will correspondingly require second amended responses.   The Court gives some discussion as to the RFAs at issue in hopes of steering the parties’ future additional meet-and-confer process between now and the continued hearing.  Both parties are ordered to meet and confer on the FROGs, SROGs and RFPs to resolve as many requests as possible without the Court’s intervention and to narrow the number and scope of the remaining discovery requests at issue.  The moving party is ordered to provide a truncated Separate Statement containing only the SROGs and RFPs that remain at issue on or before April 12, 2024

                                                (4) Motion to Compel RFAs as to Paul Herrera is GRANTED as discussed below

                                                (5) Requests for Sanctions is also CONTINUED to April 17, 2024

                                                (6) GRANT; the Court will discuss the potential new trial date which will be no earlier than late October at the hearing

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Factual

On May 10, 2022, Plaintiff Catherine M. Herrera, as successor trustee to Amend and Restatement of the Jan Kumar Agarwala Separate Property Trust dated September 13, 2021 (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Darlene Agarwala, an individual, Pronita Ann Agarwala, an individual, Sabina Agarwala Miro, an individual, Stephen Miro, an individual, Christopher Miro, an individual, Gregory Mollner, an individual, Pronita Ann Agarwala and Sabina Agarwala Miro as trustees of the 2010 Darlene Agarwala Revocable Trust Dated 26, 2010, Prontina Ann Agarwala and Gregory Mollner as trustees of 2010 Agarwala-Mollner Revocable Trust Mollner, Stephen Miro and Sabine Miro as trustees of the Miro Family Trust Dated 8/7/21, all Persons claiming an interest in the real properties described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiff’s title or any cloud on Plaintiff’s title thereto, and Does 1 through 100.

On November 11, 2022, Catherine M. Herrera resigned as successor trustee and Paul Herrera accepted the position and duties as successor trustee under the terms of the Jan Trust. On December 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for: (1) Partition of that Certain Real Property Commonly Known as 5021 W. 129^th Street, Hawthorne, CA 90250 APN: 4144-002-023; and (2) Partition of that Certain Real Property Commonly Known as 521 ½ S/ Oak Street, Inglewood, California 90301 APN: 4018-025-003.

Per the moving papers, on September 6, 2023, Defendant, Darlene Agarwala propounded to Plaintiff her first sets of written discovery – Form Interrogatories, Special interrogatories, Inspection Demands, and Requests for Admission. Plaintiffs Paul and Catherine Herrera served responses on October 6, 2023. However, Defendant, Darlene Agarwala asserts that the responses contained many objections. Based on this, Darlene Agarwala asserts that her counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter, dated November 27, 2023, setting forth each deficiency of Plaintiff’s responses.  On December 7, 2023, Darlene Agarwala notes Plaintiff served amended responses to the Requests for Admission which revised the prior responses, though the amended responses still contained allegedly inadequate responses to several requests.

Defense counsel contends that on January 15, 2024, another meet and confer letter set forth, in detail, the alleged deficiencies in Plaintiff Herrera’s responses and requested the proper, code-compliant responses be served. On January 17, 2024, Defendant notes Plaintiff’s associate counsel sent correspondence proclaiming that the amended responses were proper, and without addressing substantively the points raised by Defendant’s counsel’s January 15, 2024 meet and confer letter.

Defendant Darlene Agarwala notes that concurrently filed with the present motions to compel further is an invitation to Plaintiff’s counsel to participate in an IDC if allowed by the Court.   Based on the above, Defendant Darlene Agarwala files these Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s further responses to set one discovery. The parties also have stipulated to continue the trial from April 8 to October 2024 or later.

B. Procedural 

On January 26, 2024, Defendant, Darlene Agarwala filed these Motions to Compel Further responses from Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, Paul Herrera. On March 7, 2024, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant filed opposition briefs. On March 13, 2024, Darlene Agarwala filed reply briefs.  Each side filed Separate Statements as well.

II. ANALYSIS 

            As with most partition action, the parties have strenuous disagreements bearing on the accounting aspect of the relative amounts that should be added or deducted from a pro rata or per capita allocations.  These disagreements bubbled over into the discovery motion cauldron.  The Court will assist the parties in resolving those disagreements but needs directed assistance form counsel to make that happen.   

Preliminarily, this Court notes that the purpose of a Separate Statement in a discovery motion is to make it easier, not harder, for the Court to rule on motions compelling further responses to propounded discovery categories. Regurgitating arguments, points, authorities, and citations from a moving or opposing brief in a separate statement, especially to the extent done by Defendant, violates the page limitations of briefs supporting or opposing a motion. This Court is unable to gather from the moving papers which requests Defendant Darlene Agarwala is seeking further responses, thus requiring the Court to review the lengthy separate statements in order to determine as to which requests Darlene Agarwala is seeking further responses. In a skimmed review of the separate statements, this Court believes Darlene Agarwala’s Requests for Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, set one, seeks further responses to five (5) requests, (9.1, 15.1, 17.1, 50.3, and 50.5.) Despite there apparently being only five requests at issue, Darlene has submitted a fifty-five (55) page separate statement. Next, for the Request for Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, set one, this Court believes Darlene Agarwala is requesting further responses to special interrogatories nos. 1 through 69. The separate statement for this motion is eighty-five (85) pages long. Third, for the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Inspection Demand, this Court believes Darlene Agarwala is seeking further responses to demands 1-28. Attached to this motion is a 61 page separate statement. 55+85+61=201; that’s a lot of pages in addition to the briefs, declarations, the responsive separate statements, etc. 

Rather than send the parties to a discovery referee given this unwieldy volume, the Court instead will give examples of how it will analyze the shortest set of discovery requests at issue and direct the parties back to conduct a more meaningful and fruitful meet and confer process.  The Court will also order the moving party to submit a bare-bones amended separate statement as to each continued motions shortly before the continued hearing as discussed below. 

            The RFAs.

            As to RFA 19, the Motion is granted.  Both parties are making semantic arguments which the Court will address.  The thrust of the RFA is to seek an admission that the escrow statement figure for Decedent’s capital contributions is an accurate reflection of the entire and full amount of Decedent’s “capital” contributions.  The amended response denies that the escrow statement reflects the total amount of Jan Agarwale’s “contributions” but did not respond to the issue of “capital” contributions.  A second amended response is required. 

            As to RFA 20, the Court’s analysis and ruling is the same, a second amended response is required that responds to the specifically requested admission about “capital” contributions, not other species of contributions. 

            As to RFAs 60, 61 and 62, the Motion is granted.  Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220 (c) states that “If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party SHALL STATE IN THE ANSWER THAT A REASONABLE INQUIRY CONCERNING THE MATTER IN THE PARTICULAR REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.”  (Capitalization added.)  Neither the original nor amended responses states that reasonable inquiry has been made, and thus a second amended response is required that addresses this point.  If it is true that co-defendant Catherine Herrera admitted this same request propounded to her, it is not clear why Paul did not ask his predecessor if she did or did not obtain purchase documents and/or improvement documents and/or income/expense documents as to the 129^th Street property, but the second amended response must specify that reasonable inquiry has been made.

            This Court further notes that the majority of the argument is in the separate statement, instead of the memorandum of points and authorities, where it should be. The Court also observes that the majority of the arguments made in the separate statement are virtually identical to the other arguments made as to each request in that specific separate statement. The Court urges the parties to take note of this as the Court will not rule on motions to compel further responses with excessive separate statements, but instead, will send the issues back to the party to further meet and confer. This Court thus is continuing the hearing, but orders the parties to meet and confer further, specifically with regards to the Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and Inspection Demands. This Court further requires an amended separate statement to be filed by the moving party as to the SROGs and RFPs on or before April 12, 2024. The amended separate statement should contain only the request, the response, and any amended or supplemental response but only as to the discovery requests still at issue for the continuance. The continued hearing will be on April 17, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. The issue of sanctions will also be discussed at the continued hearing.