Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCP00221, Date: 2024-11-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24TRCP00221 Hearing Date: November 22, 2024 Dept: 8
Tentative Ruling
HEARING DATE: November 22, 2024
CASE NUMBER: 24TRCP00221
CASE NAME: Amalia Martinon v. James River Insurance Company
MOVING PARTY: Petitioner, Amalia Martinon
RESPONDING PARTY: Respondent, James River Insurance Company
TRIAL DATE: Not set.
MOTION: (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two
(2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set Two
(3) Request for Monetary Sanctions
Tentative Rulings: (1) The Objections to RFAs 30 and 31 are overruled, but the substantive response following the objections substantially complies with CCP section 2033.220. Stripped of the overruled objections, the verified substantive response shall stand and the motion to compel a further response is therefore DENIED
(2) The Objections to the sub-parts of FROG 17.1 are also overruled, but the substantive response following the objections shall stand. Stripped of the overruled objections, the substantive responses to FROG 17.1 and its subparts is DENIED
(3) DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual
On July 3, 2024, Petitioner, Amalia Martinon (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to Assign Case Number for Purpose of Discovery Motions against Respondent, James River Insurance Company (“Respondent”).
On March 14, 2024, Petitioner asserts that she served Respondent with Set Two discovery including Form Interrogatories, Set Two and Requests for Admission, Set Two. Specifically, Petitioner contends that Request for Admission Nos. thirty (30) and thirty-one (31) seek an admission or denial of the proposition that Edgar Jeske was at fault for the incident and whether Edgar Jeske was partially at fault for the incident. Petitioner also states that a response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 was also requested.
On April 16, 2024, Petitioner received Respondent’s responses to Requests for Admissions and Form Interrogatories, Set Two, but Respondent did not admit Requests for Admissions Nos. 30-31. On May 20, 2024, Petitioner emailed Respondent’ counsel a meet and confer letter regarding Respondent’s non-code compliant discovery responses. On May 28, 2024, Respondent subsequently served further discovery responses, including further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 and Requests for Admission Nos. 30-31. That same day, Petitioner’s counsel sent Respondent’s counsel a meet and confer letter and Respondent’s counsel stated further responses would only be provided for Special Interrogatory No. 22 and Request for Production of Documents No. 24.
On July 11, 2024, counsel further met and conferred regarding Respondent’s further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 and Requests for Admission Nos. 30-31. Further, the parties agreed to participate in an IDC and ultimately granted Petitioner an extension to file Motions to Compel Further responses to September 13, 2024. The IDC took place on August 27, 2024. During that IDC, Petitioner is under the impression that Respondent’s counsel possessed indicated Respondent possessed information from its experts regarding determination of liability, but that despite that information, Respondent’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 failed to incorporate Respondent’s legal position including its experts’ opinion and rests solely on Respondent’s understanding that it does not have personal knowledge of the incident.
On September 5, 2024, Respondent’s counsel stated in an email that in light of the IDC, Respondent finds their responses to be code-compliant and that Respondent would not be amending its responses. Petitioner asserts she is asking Respondent to take a stance on liability in this case and state who it is placing at fault for the incident. Petitioner emphasizes that Respondent has two (2) countervailing lawsuits and is trying to argue that simultaneously Mr. Edgar Jeske as well as Petitioner are at fault for this incident.
Thus, Petitioner is seeking an order from this court to compel Respondent to promptly serve full and complete further responses to the discovery requests without objection and any objections in its responses should be ordered and deemed stricken.
B. Procedural
On September 13, 2024, Petitioner filed these Motions to Compel Further Responses. On October 9, 2024, Respondent filed an opposition brief. On October 21, 2024, this Petitioner filed a Notice of Continuance. On November 15, 2024, Petitioner filed a reply brief.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard
A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)
Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(c), the court shall make the order deeming the truth of the matters admitted unless the responding party serves before the hearing a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Code Civ. Proc § 2033.220. Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220 requires that each answer either admits, denies or specifies that the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. As stated in Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates, the moving party is not required to meet and confer before bringing this action. (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates, 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395.)¿¿Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)¿¿
B. Discussion
Here, after discussions during and earlier unreported IDC about similar topics, Petitioner has now formally moved to compel further responses to Requests for Admission, Set Two Nos. 30 and 31 as well as Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 as it pertains to those Requests for Admission.
““[S]ince requests for admissions are not limited to matters within personal knowledge of the responding party, that party has a duty to make a reasonable investigation of the facts before answering items which do not fall within his personal knowledge. (Lindgren v. Superior Court (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 743, 746 [47 Cal.Rptr. 298]; Chodos v. Superior Court (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 318, 323 [30 Cal.Rptr. 303]).” (Bloxham v. Saldinger (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 729, 751–752, . . . quoting Smith v. Circle P Ranch Co. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 267, 273, 150 Cal.Rptr. 828.) The duty imposed is only to have made a reasonable investigation. Respondent’s original responses it stated that “[a] reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in this particular request has been made, and that information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable Responding Party to admit.” Further, in the supplemental responses, it provides an even clearer answer that “[i]t is Responding Party’s understanding that the traffic collision report has placed Claimant at fault for the accident. A trier of fact has not determined the factual dispute. Discovery and investigation is [sic] ongoing.”
The Court interprets the motion to compel as a formal attempt to have the Court rule on Respondent’s objections. To over simplify the law, CCP section 2033.220(b) and (c) require a party responding to a Request for Admission to choose from among 3 options: admit, deny or state the responding party lacks sufficient information to admit or deny after reasonable inquiry. Petitioner’s response elected option 3, after stating objections. Similar to a very recently published appellate decision, if the responding party’s “objections are ignored, it is clear his substantive answers were far more ‘complete and straightforward’ than not. (§ 2033.220, subd. (a).)” (Katayama v. Continental Investment Group (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 898, 326 Cal.Rptr. 297, 306.) Here, were the Court to ignore Respondent’s objections, it would find the substantive response that follows to substantially comply with Section 2033.220. But this is motion to compel a further response and the Court overrules the objections to RFAs 30 and 31. The Court also overrules the objection asserted to each sub-part of form interrogatory 17.1. No further response needs to be ordered to either the RFAs nor the FROG, because stripped of the overruled objections, the verified substantive responses are Code-compliant and shall stand.
C. Sanctions
The court does not find good cause to grant Petitioner’s Requests for Sanctions of $1,925 per motion. The Court finds Respondent had a good faith dispute regarding the matters asserted by objection, the substantive response is found by the Court to be substantially in compliance with the statutory requirements for RFA and FROG responses, and there is thus substantial justification for the Respondent’s position.
III. CONCLUSION
Respondent’s objections to the three discovery responses in question are overruled but eh substantive responsive that follow shall stand. Sanctions requests from both parties are denied at this time. Unless waived by both sides, Petitioner shall give notice of the Court’s rulings.