Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV33964, Date: 2023-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33964    Hearing Date: April 3, 2023    Dept: 39

Hestia Saritka v. Metha Trispetina

Case No. 22STCV33964

Motion to Compel Further Responses to RPDs and SROGs

Motion to Deem Admitted

            Plaintiff Hestia Saritka (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, set one (“RPDs”) and Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROGs”).  Plaintiff also moves to deem the matters specified in the Requests for Admission, set one (“RFAs”) to have been admitted.  Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the Court advanced the motion to compel further responses to the SROGs and the motion to deem admitted to be heard on the same date as the motion to compel further responses to the RPDs. 

            The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the RPDs.  The Court grants the motion with respect to RPD #51 and RPD #52, as Defendant did not respond.  The Court denies the motion with respect to the remaining RPDs.  Defendant provided a code-compliant response.  Plaintiff contends Defendant failed to sort and label responsive documents to correspond with each category.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, subd. (a).)  Plaintiff is incorrect.  At the top right hand corner of each document, Defendant stated to which RPD(s) the document is responsive.  (See Motion to compel Further Discovery Responses, Exhibit B.)  The Court awards no sanctions for this motion, as the parties should have been able to resolve this issue amongst themselves without burdening the Court).

            The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory #35.  The SROG states: “Confirm that Plaintiff lived in Iowa at the time of the probate case No. 19SVPB00403.”  The response was: “No, not the entire time.”  That is responsive to the SROG, which was vague and non-specific.  Plaintiff argues that this response contradicts a response to a request for admission.  That is not a proper basis to compel a further response.  To the extent Defendant did not provide dates, the SROG did not require such a response.  The Court finds that there was no substantial justification for this motion and orders Plaintiff to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel.    

            The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted.  However, Plaintiff’s counsel admits that Defendant served responses to the RFAs on February 3, 2023.  (See Motion to Deem Admitted, p. 3.)  Plaintiff’s counsel attached the responses, which appear to be in order.  (See Motion to Deem Admitted, Exh. B.)  If there was some deficiency, however, Plaintiff should have filed a motion to compel further responses to the RFAs.  Because there was no substantial basis for Plaintiff to file a motion to deem admitted, the Court orders Plaintiff to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel.

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to SROG is granted in part and denied in part.  Defendant shall provide a further responses, without objections, to SROG #51 and RPD #52, without objections, within thirty (30) days.  The motion is otherwise denied.

            2.         Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RPDs is denied.

            3.         Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted is denied.

            4.         Plaintiff shall pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel, in the amount of $700 within thirty (30) days.

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