Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 24TRCV01624, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV01624, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24TRCV01624 Hearing Date: February 6, 2025 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: February 6, 2025

CASE NUMBER: 24TRCV01624

CASE NAME: Pisha Toa v. Anibal Bernal, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Pisha Toa

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant, King Environmental Corporation and Cross-Complainants/Cross-Defendants, Haik Petrosian and Suzanne Petrosian

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

MOTION:

(1) Motion to Compel King Environnmental’s Further Responses Requests for Admission, Set One

(2) Motion to Compel King Environmental’s Further Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories, Set One

(3) Motion to Compel King Environmental’s Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One

(4) Request for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings: (1) – (4) ARGUE / CONTINUED. The Opposition asserts there has been supplemental responses but there is no defense separate statement to assist the Court in knowing which discovery requests were supplemented or if the later responses moot the motion to compel. Sanctions will likely be awarded once the Court obtains the missing information, and possibly after a continued hearing.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff, Pisha Toa (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Anibal Bernal, Commercial Waste Services, Inc., and DOES 1 through 50. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Negligence/Negligence Per Se; (2) Vicarious Liability; and (3) Negligent Hiring, Retention, Training, Supervision and Entrustment.

On September 20, 2024, Commercial Waste Services, Inc. filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants, Anibal Bernal, Haik Petrosian, Suzanne Petrosian, Ace Diversion, Inc., King Environmental Corporation, and ROES 1 through 10. The Cross-Complaint alleged causes of action for: (1) Indemnity; (2) Contribution; (3) Declaratory Relief – Duty to Defend; (4) Declaratory Relief – Duty to Indemnify; and (5) Conversion.

On October 9, 2024, Cross-Complainants/Cross-Defendants, King Environmental Corporation, Haik Petrosian, and Suzanne Petrosian filed a cross-complaint against Commercial

Waste Services, Inc., and MOES 1 through 100. That cross-complaint alleged causes of action for: (1) Indemnity; (2) Equitable Contribution; and (3) Declaratory Relief.

On October 23, 2024, Plaintiff propounded the first set of discovery requests on King Environmental Corporation. (Declaration of Pavel Sterin (“Sterin Decl.”), ¶ 10.) Plaintiff states that since November 21, 2024, per the requests from Defense Counsel’s office, several extensions were granted until December 23, 2024, for responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Sterin Decl., ¶ 15.) On December 23, 2024, Plaintiff states that Defendant King Environmental Corporation served responses consisting of only objections to all the discovery requests. (Sterin Decl., ¶ 17.) During the meet and confer process, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that Defendant failed to put forward any evidence that it had actually even attempted to provide verified responses, over 3 months after Plaintiff propounded the requests. (Sterin Decl., ¶ 27.) As of the date of Plaintiff’s filing of this motion, January 14, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel declared that he had not received substantive responses to the first set of discovery. (Sterin Decl., ¶ 28.)

As such, Plaintiff has brought these Motions to Compel King Environmental Corporation’s (“King Environmental”) Further Responses to Set One of Discovery.

B. Procedural

On January 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed Motions to Compel King Environmental’s Further Responses to set one of discovery. On January 24, 2025, King Environmental filed opposition briefs. On January 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed reply briefs.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) For discovery purposes, information is regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.” (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)

Responses to interrogatories must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a).) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, then it must be answered to the extent possible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(b).) “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(c).)

Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if

the propounding party deems that” the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2)¿an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code of Civ. Proc. §¿2030.300(a).) Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc. §¿2030.300(c).)

Further, a motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents (“RFP”) may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive, or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) In Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court defined “good cause” as a showing that there “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.” If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (a), provides that “[o]n receipt of a particular response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise the propounding party waives the right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).) Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that . . .”[a]n answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).

B. Discussion

i. Meet and Confer Efforts

On December 27, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defense Counsel, requesting substantive responses to propounded discovery. (Sterin Decl., ¶ 22.) On January 2, 2025, Defense counsel replied with another request for extension. (Sterin Decl., ¶ 24.)

During the entire meet and confer process, Plaintiff’s counsel contends that Defendant put no evidence forward that it had actually even attempted to provide verified responses, over three (3) months after Plaintiff propounded the requests. (Sterin Decl., ¶ 27.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently met and conferred in good faith prior to the filing of these motions.

ii. Motions to Compel Further Responses

Before the Court individually discusses each of the motions to compel further, it has some preliminary issues. First, the Sterin declaration is unclear. The Court requires clarification as to whether King Environmental has verified any of its responses. Paragraph 27 of the Sterin declaration seems to suggest that King Environmental has not ever “attempted to provide verified responses, over 3 months after Plaintiff propounded the requests.” (Sterin Decl., ¶ 27.)

Next, in King Environmental’s opposition brief, it argues this Court should not grant the motions on the grounds that Plaintiff has not utilized the informal discovery conference (“IDC”) under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.080 prior to bringing this motion in further violation of this Court’s guidelines. As noted in Plaintiff’s reply brief, Section 2016.080 has been repealed since January 1, 2023. Even if it had not been repealed, the Court does not require parties to request an IDC. The Court’s Courtroom Information guidelines encourage but do not require IDCs, and an IDC requires an agreement between the parties which is lacking here.

The last preliminary question this Court has is the date King Environmental provided supplemental responses, and which “portions” of the discovery were supplemental responses provided for. King Environmental’s opposition brief states that it has provided supplemental responses to substantial portions of the written discovery, however, the Court has been kept in the dark as to which requests have been given a substantive verified response and what the substance, if any, is for those responses. King Environmental failed to provide a defense separate statement for any of the three sets of discovery at issue, nor are copies of the supplemental responses attached. This is not a typical way one avoid monetary sanctions.

As such, the Court’s tentative ruling is to ARGUE these motion and potentially CONTINUE the hearing to enable the defense to establish which responses have been supplemented, which have not, and why it has taken all these months to even fail to provide such information to the Court.

iii. Sanctions

The Court needs the further information above to determine sanctions. The Court tentatively will be awarding sanction against defense counsel and defendant, but depending on what the Court learns at the hearing there may be a further hearing. As such, this motion will be continued.