Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV11182, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11182    Hearing Date: December 6, 2023    Dept: 39

Perry Lazar v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.

Case No. 22STCV11182

Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses

            Plaintiff moves to compel further discovery responses to certain Requests for Admission (“RFAs”), as well as Form Interrogatory (“FROG”) Number 17.1, from Defendant First American Title Company (“FATCO”) and Defendant First American Title Insurance Company (“FATIC”).  The parties met-and-conferred but require rulings on Defendant’s response to FROG #17.1 with respect to certain RFAs. 

            FROG #17.1 requires that the responding party address the following issues for each response to an RFA that is not an unqualified admission: (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 tangible tings that support your response and state the name, address, and telephone number of the person who  has each document or thing.  

            The Court rules as follows:

            RFA #5 – Denied.  The response correctly references Exhibit D. 

            RFA #12 – Granted.  The response does not address the RFA.

            RFA #19 – Denied.  The response states that FATCO did not remove the relevant language and stated that any alteration was done without its authorization.

            RFA #20 – Denied.  See above.

            RFA #21 – Granted.  The response does not address the RFA. 

            RFA #24 – Granted.  The response does not address the RFA.

            RFA #27 – Granted.  The response does not address the RFA.

            RFA #40 – Granted.  The response does not address the RFA.

            RFA #57 – Denied.  The response states that FATCO did not prepare the document and therefore did not create the defect.

            RFA #58 – Denied.  See above.

            RFA #61 – Granted.  The response references Exhibit D, not Exhibit G. 

            RFA #64 – Denied.  The response correctly references Exhibit H.

            RFA #65 – Denied.  The response correctly references Exhibit G

            RFA #66 – Denied.  The response states that FATCO did not prepare the document and therefore did not create the defect.

            RFA #67 – Denied.  The response states that FATCO did not have actual knowledge of errors in Exhibit D because it did not prepare that exhibit. 

            RFA #68 – Granted.  The response is confusing because it does not clarify which exhibit(s) it is referencing.    

            RFA #72 – Granted.  The response does not address whether FATCO was required to include the legal description. 

            RFA #89 – Denied.  The response is sufficient.

            RFA #90 – Denied.  The response is sufficient.

            RFA #91 – Denied.  The response is sufficient.

            RFA #92 – Denied.  The RFA asks FATCO to admit that it approved the legal description before issuing the title policy.  FATCO responded that it does not issue title policies.  Plaintiff’s RFA is poorly drafted.

            RFA #93 – Granted.  The RFA asks FATIC to admit that it approved the legal description before issuing the title policy.  The response does not address this issue.

            RFA #94 – Denied.  See RFA #92.

            RFA #95 – Granted.  See RFA #93.

            RFA #97 – Denied.

            RFA #98 – Denied. 

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the Requests for Admission is denied as moot.

            2.         Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to FROG #17.1 is granted in part and denied in part.

            3.         Defendants shall serve supplemental verified responses without objections, consistent with this order, within 45 days.

            4.         The Court denies all requests for sanctions.

            5.         Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.