Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23BBCV00880, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00880    Hearing Date: February 23, 2024    Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT V

JONATHAN TYREE EVANS, et al.; Plaintiffs, vs. ADVENTIST HEALTH GLENDALE; Defendant.

Case No.: 23BBCV00880

Hearing Date: February 23, 2024 Time: 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF MELANIE NICHOLE MELENDREZ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiff Melanie Nichole Melendrez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Lucia Laura Torres

Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply filed in connection with the motion.

BACKGROUND

On April 25, 2023, Plaintiffs Jonathan Tyree Evans (“Evans”) and Melanie Nichole Melendrez (“Melendrez”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Lucia

Laura Torres (“Defendant”). On October 5, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint for (1) Rescission, (2) Fraud — Intentional Misrepresentation, (3) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, (4) Breach of Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, (5) Negligence, (6) Retaliatory Acts (Retaliatory Eviction)—Violation of California Civil Code § 1942.5, (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (8) Violation of CC § 789.3, and (9) Violation of B & P § 17200.

On January 18, 2024, Plaintiff Melendrez filed the instant motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for production of documents, and requests for admission. On February 8, 2024, Defendant filed and opposition, and on February 13, 2024, Melendrez replied.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (a), Section 2031.310, and 2033.290 subdivision (a), parties may move for a further response to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or requests for admission where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general. A motion to compel further response to requests for production has an additional requirement to “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1).)

Notice of motions to compel further responses to discovery 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, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c), 2033.290, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b), 2031.310, subd. (b), 2033.290, subd. (b).) California 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 (a)(3)).

Where the court grants a motion to compel further responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification, or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (h), 2030.300, subd. (d); 2033.290, subd. (d).)

DISCUSSION

A. Meet and Confer

Defendant argues that Melendrez has not sufficiently met and conferred because she filed the motion 2 days after supplemental responses were served. Court finds, however, that the meet and confer requirement was satisfied based on Defendant’s meet and confer prior to the supplemental responses, which only supplemented a portion of the responses that Melendrez maintains are incomplete.

Form Interrogatories

Melendrez seeks further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 12.1, 12.4, 15.1, and 17.1. The court has reviewed the subject discovery requests and responses. As to Nos. 12.1, 12.4, and 15.1, the court agrees that Defendant has not provided all information requested in the various subparts. For example, Defendant fails to provide contact information for potential witnesses (response to Form Interrogatories Nos 12.1, fails to provide the requested information about the specifics of the photographs referenced in the supplemental response to Form Interrogatories No. 12.4, provides no information about the denial of material allegations or affirmative defenses in the pleadings (Form Interrogatories Nos 15.1).

Melendrez also argues that Defendant’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 is not code compliant. A code-compliant response must be one of the following:(1)¿A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities; (2)¿A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item; or (3)¿An objection to the particular demand for inspection,

copying, testing, or sampling. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210(a).) A representation of inability to comply “shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand” and “shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230.) The statement “shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Ibid.) The response of “Unknown at this time. Investigation and discovery is ongoing” is not code compliant when documents are requested.

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS the motion as to Form Interrogatories.

B. Special Interrogatories

Melendrez seeks further responses to Special Interrogatory No. 25. This interrogatory requests details as to any attempt to evict Plaintiffs from the rental unit. Defendant responded that “Responding party filed the first unlawful detainer case on July 2022 and second unlawful detainer case on May 24, 2023.” Plaintiff requests a further response on the basis that the response omits an unlawful detainer filed later in 2023, and a forcible eviction attempt made in August/September of 2023 where responding party simply locked the tenants out of the unit and threw out all of their items. In opposition, Defendant argues that the terms “attempt” and “evict” are vague and ambiguous and that Defendant provided all information relating to any unlawful detainers filed by Plaintiffs and known at the time of the response. The court finds the response sufficient. If Melendrez seeks information about the incidents she refers to, she may compel discovery specifically directed towards those incidents.

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES the motion as to Special Interrogatories.

C. Requests for Admission

Melendrez seeks a further response to Request for Admission No. 12 which asks Defendant to admit that she failed to provide Plaintiffs with a habitable place to live. Defendants responded that “A reasonable inquiry concerning the particular matter in this request has been made and the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable responding party

to admit or deny this request at this time.” Melendrez argues that the request asks for the admission of a straightforward fact. Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220, subdivision (c) provides: “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.” Accordingly, the court finds that the response is code compliant. Further, whether the property is habitable requires a legal conclusion.

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES the motion as to Requests for Admission.

D. Request for Production of Documents

Melendrez seeks further responses to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 2, 3, 55, and 56.

Request Nos. 2 and 3 requests Any and all communications between Defendant and any person (besides Defendant’s attorney) where the communication relates to Plaintiff or the rental unit. Defendant responded that she will comply in whole with the requests, and produced text messages. Melendrez argues a further response should be compelled because these are not all responsive documents. Specifically, nothing has been produced between landlord and manager, between landlord and the City of Burbank which repeatedly cited her, between landlord, manager, repairmen, and vendors relating to maintenance, etc. In opposition, Defendant has produced all documents that are currently in her possession, custody and control. The court finds the response code compliant and the production sufficient as Defendant represents that these are all the documents she has in her possession, custody, and control.

Request No. 55 requests all unlawful detainer complaints Defendant filed against Plaintiffs. Defendant responded that she will comply in whole with the request and produced a motion from one of the UD cases. Melendrez argues a further response should be compelled because the requests asks for complaints and none have been produced. In opposition, Defendant argues that she initially produced all documents currently in her possession, custody and control. In a good faith effort to further comply, she requested a copy of the file from the Unlawful

Detainer Attorney, who previously represented her, and will produce non-privileged documents upon receipt. She represents that she indicated this in her further response. The court finds this to be code compliant and sufficient.

Request No. 56 seeks all communications between Defendant and the office of M.C. Earle relating to the rental unit. Defendant objected to this demand on the grounds that it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. Melendrez argues a further response should be compelled because objections have been waived by the failure to provide a timely response. Defendant argues that there is a pending motion for relief from waiver of objections and argues this motion is premature prior to this motion being heard. The court agrees that the documents that may be privileged should not be compelled prior to resolution of the pending motion for relief from waiver, and thus the motion as to this request is premature.

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES the motion as to Request for Production of Documents.

E. Sanctions

As the motion is granted in part and denied in part, the request for sanctions is denied.

F. Multiple Motions Filed As One

Melendrez improperly filed four motions to compel further discovery as one motion as it sought to compel further responses to four different sets of discovery. Accordingly, Melendrez is ORDERED to pay three extra filing fees to the court for the motions.

Moving Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 23, 2024

_____________________________

Sarah J. Heidel

Judge of the Superior Court