Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22STLC05464, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC05464    Hearing Date: January 24, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 1-24-24

Case #: 22STLC05464

Trial Date: Not Set/NA

FURTHER DOCUMENTS & ADMISSIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Rick Ladd

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, County of Los Angeles, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents and Requests for Admissions

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Rick Ladd owns certain real property identified as 3912 West 106^th St., Inglewood. Plaintiff alleges the County of Los Angeles improperly assessed property taxes for the years 2019 through 2022, for a balance in excess of $16,781.52.

On August 17, 2022, and May 1, 2023, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a complaint and first amended complaint for Refund of Property Taxes, Accounting, and Declaratory Relief. On May 2, 2023, the action was reclassified as unlimited. On September 5, 2023, the cou35rt (Department 85) sustained the demurrer to the accounting and declaratory relief cause of action without leave to amend, overruled the demurrer to the refund of property taxes causes of action, and determined the action was not properly before the writ department. On September 7, 2023, the action was transferred to Department 68.  

RULING: Denied as to Documents/Granted as to Admissions.

Plaintiff Rick Ladd, in pro per, moves to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, numbers 3, 5-10, and Requests for Admissions, numbers 8-11, 14, 18-21, and 30-33, from defendants County of Los Angeles, et al. Ladd maintains Defendants continue to provide non-code compliant responses to the document demand and admissions. Defendant in opposition counters the motions are not timely filed, and Plaintiff is not entitled to any information beyond the prior administrative proceeding. Plaintiff in reply maintains to only seeking documents promised in response to the operative set of discovery and code-compliant responses. The court consolidates the rulings on both motions, due to the similarity of objections and scope of consideration applicable to the subject action.

Responses to the request for production and admissions were served on September 26, 2023. The motions were filed on December 26, 2023, which is more than 45 days from the date of service of the responses. (Code Civ. Proc., 2031.310, subd. (c), 2033.290, subd. (c).) The parties agree that a filing extension deadline was agreed upon for December 15, 2023. Plaintiff represents the inability to file the motion at an earlier date, due to Informal Discovery Conference requirement, thereby leading to the late filing. The court accepts the representations of Plaintiff regarding the pre-filing requirements in the court, and will therefore consider the merits of the motion.

The responses to both sets of discovery consist of a series of objections on grounds of relevance, overbroad, vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, and unduly burdensome and harassing. Subject to the objections, Defendant agreed to produce all non-privileged documents, whereas the admissions consist of objections and a statement whereby “Responding Party declines to respond to this request.”

The court adheres to a liberal standard for discovery in order to insure the robust adjudication of all claims. The court therefore addresses the objections.

The form of question objections lack merit. Defendant may not intentionally misconstrue a work for obstreperous purposes. “Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 superseded by statute on unrelated ground as stated in Guzman v. General Motors Corp. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 438, 444.) Defendant lacks support for the objections on vague, ambiguous and unintelligible given the clearly understood period of dispute, and defined provisions for electronic storage production in the Code of Civil Procedure, as applicable.

The burdensome and oppressive objections also lack merit. Objecting parties must file evidence detailing the amount of work involved, in order to support objections based upon burden and oppression. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) “[S]ome burden is inherent in all demands for discovery. The objection of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice.” (Id. at p. 418.)

“But ‘[f]or discovery purposes, information is relevant if it “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement….” [Citation.] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation.] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery [citation], and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases. [Citation.]’ (Citations.)” (Cruz v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 646, 653–654.)

The subject objection appears to be the core of the dispute itself. As provided above, relevance constitutes a generally disfavored objection barring privilege or other exceptional circumstances. The uniqueness of the administrative process underlying the claim requires address of the circumstances.

“The assessment of property for the purpose of taxation is a function of the executive branch of the government and the judiciary has no power or jurisdiction to inquire as to the actual value of property to determine whether or not it has been properly assessed. (Citation.) ... The duty of determining the value of the property and the fairness of the assessment is confided to the appropriate county board of equalization. In discharging this duty, the board's determination upon the merits of the controversy is conclusive. The taxpayer has no right to a trial de novo in the superior court to resolve conflicting issues of fact as to the taxable value of his property. (Citation.) If a plaintiff taxpayer claims only that the assessor and the board of equalization erroneously applied a valid method of determining full cash value, the decision of the board is equivalent to the determination of a trial court and the trial court in turn may review only the record presented to the board. The trial court may overturn the board's decision only when no substantial evidence supports it, in which case the actions of the board are deemed so arbitrary as to constitute a deprivation of property without due process. (Citation.) In those cases where the substantial evidence test is to be applied, the trial court does not weigh the evidence in the administrative record nor does it exercise its independent judgment. Rather, it reviews the entire record to determine if there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the administrative agency. (Citation.)

“Where the legality of the valuation method used by the assessor is in issue, the scope of judicial review is not limited to the evidence. (Citation.) When the taxpayer challenges the validity of the valuation method itself, the issue raised is a question of law. That question is whether the challenged method of valuation is arbitrary, in excess of discretion, or in violation of the standards prescribed by law. (Citation.) Reviewing courts must presume the assessing officers have performed their duties and have assessed all properties fairly and upon an equal basis. (Citation.) Where taxes are claimed to be excessive, before they can be set aside there must be evidence to show the assessments were fraudulently or mistakenly made or that an improper method of valuation was pursued. Put another way, specific valuations and methods of valuation employed are reviewable only for arbitrariness, abuse of discretion, or failure to follow the standards prescribed by the Legislature. (Citation.)

“When a board of equalization purports to decide a question of law or refuses to hear a case on the ground it involves only a question of law to be decided by the courts, a taxpayer has the right to resort to the courts for determination of such question. (Citation.) Thus, if the issue is a legal one the judicial inquiry is pursued independently of the board's decision and unrestricted by the usual limits on the scope of review. The court is not restricted to the transcript of the proceedings before the board, but may receive additional evidence bearing on the legal question. (Citations.)”

(Norby Lumber Co. v. County of Madera (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1352, 1362–1363.)

The gravamen of the first amended complaint specifically articulates a challenge regarding the correction of a property valuation from $590,000 to $275,000. [First Amend. Comp., ¶ 9.] Plaintiff maintains the Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Board failed to timely comply with the provisions of California Revenue and Taxation Code sections 1604, et seq. [First Amend. Comp., ¶ 10.] The remaining first cause of action specifically and exclusively alleges an “unlawful method of assessment” seeking “de novo review of the method of assessment applied...” [First Amend. Comp., ¶ 16.]

In ruling on the demurrer to the first amended complaint, the writs and receivers court wrote in relevant part: “The demurrer to the FAC is overruled for the first cause of action, which is construed as a taxpayer refund claim, and sustained without leave to amend for the remaining two causes of action.” The court specifically reviewed the administrative record, and categorically found no challenge to the actual wrongfulness of any assessment, but in fact a sole claim for miscalculation of the properly refunded amount. The court therefore held the case shall only proceed on the issue of the tax refund. A tax refund case is properly filed in the superior court. (Little v. Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Bds. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 915, 923 accord Sunrise Retirement Villa v. Dear (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 948, 955 (footnote 2.) Given the propriety of the tax refund claim itself before the court, the court declines to dismiss the motion.

Nevertheless, given the definition of the action as one exclusively for reimbursement of purportedly overpaid taxes, discovery remains limited to the boundaries of the substantial evidence test standard. (Norby Lumber Co. v. County of Madera, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1362-1363; Kaiser Center, Inc. v. County of Alameda (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 978, 983.) The court finds no basis for discovery beyond the administrative record, in that Plaintiff lacks a basis for seeking de novo review of the entire underlying assessment process.

The court therefore finds the demand properly requested “relevant” information. It remains undisputed however that all non-privileged material was produced, as constituted in the administrate record. It remains undisputed the information was either produced or Plaintiff holds possession of the entire administrative record. The court therefore finds no basis for ordering further of said documents otherwise equally available to Plaintiff. (Bunnell v. Sup.Ct. (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 720, 723–724.) The motion is therefore denied in its entirety as to the documents.

On the requests for admissions however, while the court finds no right to discovery beyond the administrative scope of the proceeding, the “decline” to provide a response still constitutes a non-code compliant response. (Code Civ. Proc., 2033.220, subd. (b-c).) Again, Plaintiff lawfully brought the civil action for a tax reimbursement, which submits the action to conventional discovery rules. The court therefore grants the motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions. Defendant is ordered to provide code compliant responses within 30 days of this order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a).)

The motion is therefore denied as to the documents request and granted as to admissions. The court reviews this action as one of first impression and therefore declines to impose sanctions based on a finding of meritorious inquiry into the scope of permissible discovery, clarification of the claim, and partially prevailing on the admissions portion of the motions.

Case Management Conference set for January 29, 2024.

Defendant to give notice.