Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case 21STCV33463 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV33463, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33463 Hearing Date: December 16, 2022 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: December 16, 2022 TRIAL DATE: March 21, 2023

CASE: Andres Ramirez v. Alfredo Hernandez, et al.

CASE NO.: 21STCV33463

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORES – GENERAL (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: (1)(2) Plaintiff Andres Ramirez

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1)(2) Defendant Alfredo Hernandez

CASE HISTORY:

· 09/10/21: Complaint filed.

· 02/14/22: First Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for breach of contract filed on September 10, 2021. In his operative First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he contracted orally with Defendants for the sale of a parcel of real property. Plaintiff contends that Defendants did not pay him all proceeds to which he was entitled under that agreement.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for admission and form interrogatories.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions (Set One) is GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $861.65 in connection with the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions. Payment is to be made to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days of this order.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General is GRANTED IN PART with respect to interrogatories Nos. 2.3, 2.4, 12.1, and 17.1, and otherwise DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission (Set One)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Request for Admissions (Set One) Nos. 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, and 30.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290(a) provides that “[o]n receipt of a 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.” (Code Civ. Proc § 2033.290(a).)

The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the requests. (See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Timing

A motion to compel further responses to requests for admission must be served “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290(c).) The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Here, Defendant’s responses were served on September 28, 2022. (Declaration of Walter Saavedra ISO Mot. ¶ 3, Exh. C.) The parties did not agree in writing to any extension to the deadline to file this motion. (Id. ¶ 4.) 45 days after the date of service would be November 12, 2022. As this motion was filed on November 8, 2022, it is timely.

Meet and Confer

A party making a motion to compel further responses must also include a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2033.290(b).)

Plaintiff’s counsel states that Plaintiff sent meet and confer letters to Defendant’s counsel, outlining the dispute with these discovery responses. (Saavedra Decl. ¶ 4.) The declaration does not state if any response was given, but provides an email exchange showing that Plaintiff offered to stipulate to an informal discovery conference, and Defendant ignored this request. (Id. Exh. D.) The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has complied with the statutory meet and confer requirements.

Procedural Violations

Although Plaintiff states that this motion is to compel further responses to requests for admissions, Plaintiff does not reference Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290 anywhere in either the notice of motion or the body of the motion itself, instead citing section 2030.220, which governs interrogatories, and 2031.310, which governs requests for production. Neither of these provisions are applicable here. However, as the sections cited are analogous provisions elsewhere in the Discovery Act, the motion itself is explicit that it seeks to compel further responses to requests for admissions, and Defendant does not object to the motion on this basis, the Court will construe the motion as being properly brought under section 2033.290, and address the merits of the motion accordingly.

Analysis

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Request for Admissions (Set One) Nos. 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, and 30.

Request No. 12 seeks an admission that the propounding party spoke with the respondent regarding the sale of the subject property. (Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 12.) Defendant objected to this request as vague, unintelligible, or ambiguous. (Id. Exh. C. No. 12.)

Request No. 18 seeks an admission that Respondent promised to honor an oral agreement with the propounding party that he would receive 50% of the proceeds from sale of the subject property. (Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 18.) Defendant objected to this request as vague, unintelligible, or ambiguous. (Id. Exh. C. No. 18.)

Request No. 19 seeks an admission that Respondent’s wife, Katie Castro, was present during the conversation referenced in Request No. 18. (Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 19.) Defendant objected to this request as vague, unintelligible, or ambiguous. (Id. Exh. C. No. 19.)

Request No. 20 seeks an admission that the propounding party agreed for respondent to take over the process of the sale of the subject property. (Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 20.) Defendant objected to this request as vague, unintelligible, or ambiguous. (Id. Exh. C. No. 20.)

Request No. 21 seeks an admission that the propounding party does not speak fluent English and therefore relied on Respondent to handle all documents regarding the subject property. (Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 21.) Defendant objected to this request as vague, unintelligible, or ambiguous. (Id. Exh. C. No. 21.)

Request No. 24 seeks an admission that the propounding party relied on Respondent’s expertise in buying and selling property. (Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 24.) Defendant objected to this request as compound. (Id. Exh. C. No. 24.)

Request No. 25 seeks an admission that Respondent told the propounding party that, after sale of the subject property and splitting the proceeds, the propounding party would receive $72,000. (Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 25.) Defendant objected to this request without stating the basis for the objection. (Id. Exh. C. No. 25.)

Request No. 28 seeks an admission that, when the propounding party was informed by the IRS that the net proceeds for the sale were significantly higher than he had been told, Respondent ignored his attempts to contact Respondent. (Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 28.) Defendant objected to this request without stating the basis for the objection. (Id. Exh. C. No. 28.)

Request No. 30 seeks an admission that Katie Castro informed the propounding party that Defendants Pedro and Margarita had taken the remainder of the net proceeds and used it to purchase a house. (Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 30.) Defendant objected to this request without stating the basis for the objection. (Id. Exh. C. No. 30.)

In opposition, Defendant makes absolutely no attempt to justify any of these objections, instead baldly asserting that Defendant provided full and complete responses to all of the requests. This contention is absurd on its face where, as here, Defendant not only objected to the requests, but, in some instances, failed to even state the basis for the objection in the response. Defendant has failed to justify these objections. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order compelling further responses without objections.

Request for Sanctions

Plaintiff requests $2,261.65 in sanctions in connection with this motion against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel. In opposition, Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $1,400.00.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220(d), “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220(d).)

Plaintiff, as the prevailing party, is the only party entitled to sanctions. Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,261.65 in connection with this motion, based on 1.5 hours of attorney time billed at a rate of $400 per hour, plus an additional 2.5 anticipated hours at the same rate, plus a $61.65 filing fee. (Saavedra Decl. ¶ 9.) With the exception of the anticipated hours, the Court finds that the amount requested is reasonable considering the relative simplicity of a motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions. The Court will therefore award the fees and costs actually billed in the amount of $861.65.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions (Set One) is GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General (Set One)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories – General Nos. 2.3, 2.4, 12.1, 17.1, and 50.1-50.6.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to an interrogatory when the court finds that: “(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate[; or] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Timing:

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be served “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).) The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Here, Plaintiff served this motion electronically on Defendant on the October 10, 2022 deadline, even though Plaintiff did not file this motion until October 11. However, as section 2031.310 only concerns itself with noticing the motion, the Court finds that the motion was timely served.

Here, Defendant’s responses were served on September 28, 2022. (Declaration of Walter Saavedra ISO Mot. ¶ 3, Exh. C.) The parties did not agree in writing to any extension to the deadline to file this motion. (Id. ¶ 4.) 45 days after the date of service would be November 12, 2022. This motion was filed on November 8, 2022. The motion is therefore timely.

Meet and Confer

Analysis

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories – General Nos. 2.3, 2.4, 12.1, 17.1, and 50.1-50.6.

1. Form Interrogatory Nos. 2.3 and 2.4

Form Interrogatory No. 2.3 seeks information regarding the Respondent’s driver’s license. (Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 2.3.) Similarly, No. 2.4 seeks information regarding any other motor vehicle licenses or permits held by the Respondent. (Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 2.4.) In response, Defendant objected to the interrogatory as irrelevant and an invasion of privacy under the California Constitution. (Id. Exh. C. Nos. 2.3, 2.4.

Defendant argues that this interrogatory is irrelevant because it has no connection to this matter. This argument is not well-taken; the purpose of this interrogatory is to obtain general background information, which, considering the broad presumption in favor of discovery, is sufficient to establish relevance. This objection is without merit.

Defendant also argues that this interrogatory is an invasion of Defendant’s privacy under Article 1 section 1 of the California Constitution.

In ruling on a privacy objection in the context of discovery, the party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) The party asserting a privacy right must also establish an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances. (Id.) Further, the party asserting a privacy right must establish a threatened intrusion that is serious. (Id.) The Court need not proceed to the fourth step of balancing competing interests if all three of the above are not satisfied. (Id. at 555.)

If the Court reaches the fourth step, the Court must balance these competing considerations: The party seeking information may raise whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure may serve. (Id. at 552.) The party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. (Id.) Courts may not require the party seeking discovery to demonstrate a “compelling need” simply because discovery of any facially private information is sought. (Id. at 556-557.) When a privacy interest is asserted, the party seeking production must show that the information sought is directly relevant to a cause of action or a defense. (Harris v. Superior Court (Smets) (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665, citing Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859-62.)

Defendant cites no authority standing for the provision that basic background information such as a party’s driver’s license is subject to a legally protected privacy interest, nor that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in this information, beyond a vague reference to “internet fraud and identity theft.” Further, Defendant makes no effort whatsoever to show that the threatened intrusion is serious. The Court therefore finds that this objection is without merit.

2. Form Interrogatory No. 12.1

Form Interrogatory No. 12.1 seeks the contact information of each individual who witnessed the incident, made any statements at the scene, heard any statements made about the incident at the scene, or who respondent or anyone acting on respondent’s behalf claims has knowledge of the incident except for expert witnesses. (Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 12.1.) Defendant responded to this request, but did not provide phone numbers as required by the interrogatory. (Plaintiff’s Exh. C. No. 12.1.)

Defendant contends that the responses are full and complete because it provided the contact information of the involved individuals, and because the phone numbers of the individuals identified are not known to Defendant. If that is the case, Defendant should have so stated in the response, under penalty of perjury. Defendant is not entitled to simply ignore portions of properly propounded discovery requests when the information sought is not available.

The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling further responses to this interrogatory.

3. Form Interrogatory No. 17.1

Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 seeks all facts in support of any response other than an unqualified admission to the contemporaneous requests for admission, the contact information of anyone with knowledge of those facts, any documents or tangible things in support of that response, and the contact information of anyone with those documents. (Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 17.1.) Defendant responded to this request except as to Requests for Admissions Nos. 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, and 30. (Plaintiff’s Exh. C. No. 17.1)

Defendant contends that it was not obligated to respond to this interrogatory with respect to those requests for admissions because it objected to those requests, rather than denying them. Even if this were a valid response, the Court has now rejected Defendant’s objections as improper. Accordingly, Defendant should now respond to interrogatory with respect to any of the pertinent admissions that are not met with an unqualified admission.

Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling further responses to this request.

4. Form Interrogatory No. 50.1

Form Interrogatory No. 50.1 seeks documents related to any agreement alleged in the pleadings and the contact information of each person in possession of those documents, as well as any persons with knowledge of unwritten modifications to the agreement and any documents which evidence those modifications. (Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 50.1.) Defendant’s response was to say that no such documents exist and no such information exists because there was no agreement as alleged in the pleadings. (Plaintiff’s Exh. C. No. 50.1.)

Although Plaintiff argues that this response is evasive, the Court disagrees. In the Court’s view, a verified statement that no such information exists is a full and complete response to the interrogatory. If Plaintiff contends that this response is false or is concealing evidence known to Defendant, Plaintiff may pursue an appropriate remedy per code. However, Plaintiff is not entitled to an order compelling further responses to this request.

5. Form Interrogatories Nos. 50.2 – 50.6

Form Interrogatories 50.2 through 50.5 seek information regarding breach, excuse of performance, voluntary termination, enforceability, and ambiguity regarding each agreement alleged in the pleadings. (See, e.g., Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 50.2.) For each, Defendant’s response was to say “No. because there was no agreement as alleged in the pleadings.” (See, e.g., Plaintiff’s Exh. C. No. 50.2.)

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to an order compelling further responses to these requests.

Sanctions

Both parties request sanctions in connection with this motion.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 authorizes the Court to impose monetary sanctions on any attorney engaging in the misuse of the discovery process by requiring that attorney to pay the reasonable expenses incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d) requires the Court to impose sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

Here, as neither party entirely prevailed on this motion, the Court declines to award sanctions.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General is GRANTED IN PART with respect to interrogatories Nos. 2.3, 2.4, 12.1, and 17.1, and otherwise DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General is DENIED.

CONCLUSION:

For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions (Set One) is GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General is GRANTED IN PART with respect to interrogatories Nos. 2.3, 2.4, 12.1, and 17.1, and otherwise DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2022 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.