Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 22STCV14121, Date: 2024-11-07 Tentative Ruling

On December 19, 2023, Defendant City of Baldwin Park filed three motions to compel further responses from Plaintiffs Gonzalo Cetina, Jorge Huerta, Jose Jimenez, Edwin Parra, Francisco Real, and Luis Valdivia.

A party may move to compel a further response to interrogatories if the demanding party deems an answer to be evasive or incomplete, if an exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted or inadequate, or if objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

The motion for Defendant’s Form Interrogatories – General, Set One seeks to compel further responses from (1) Gonzalo Cetina, (2) Jorge Huerta, (3) Edwin Parra, and (4) Francisco Real.

Gonzalo Cetina’s response to Rog No. 6.7 is incomplete and does not include the information required by the Rog’s subsections.

Jorge Huerta’s responses to Rog Nos. 6.4, 6.7, 12.6, and 14.1 are incomplete and do not include the information required by the Rogs’ subsections.

Edwin Parra’s responses to Rog Nos. 8.8 and 10.3 are incomplete and do not include the information required by the Rogs’ subsections.

Francisco Real’s responses to Rog Nos. 6.4, 6.5, and 6.7 are incomplete and do not include the information required by the Rogs’ subsections. His response to Rog No. 12.6 consists of a long narrative that still does not include the information required by the Rog’s subsections.

The motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories – General is GRANTED. Gonzalo Cetina, Jorge Huerta, Edwin Parra, and Francisco Real are ORDERED to provide code-compliant supplemental responses within 30 days.

The motion for Defendant’s Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One seeks to compel further responses from (1) Gonzalo Cetina, (2) Jose Jimenez, (3) Jorge Huerta, (4) Edwin Parra, (5) Francisco Real, and (6) Luis Valdivia.

Gonzalo Cetina’s responses to Rog Nos. 201.3, 203.1, 207.1, and 207.2 consist of a long narrative that still does not include the information required by the Rogs’ subsections.

Jose Jimenez’s response to Rog No. 212.7 is incomplete and does not include the information required by the Rog’s subsections.

Jorge Huerta’s responses to Rog Nos. 203.1, 207.1, and 207.2 consist of a long narrative that still does not include the information required by the Rogs’ subsections. His responses to Rog Nos. 212.4 and 212.7 are also incomplete and do not include the information required by the Rogs’ subsections.

Edwin Parra’s response to Rog No. 210.3 (loss of future income, benefits, or earning capacity) does not clearly state any future economic losses, Instead, it appears to be a calculation of past losses. His response to Rog No. 212.4 is incomplete and does not include the information required by the Rog’s subsections.

Francisco Real’s responses to Rog Nos. 201.3, 203.1, 207.1, and 207.2 consist of a long narrative that still does not include the information required by the Rogs’ subsections. His responses to Rog Nos. 212.4, 212.5, and 212.7 are incomplete and do not include the information required by the Rogs’ subsections.

Luis Valdivia’s responses to Rog Nos. 201.3 and 210.6 consist of long narratives that still do not include the information required by the Rogs’ subsections. His response to Rog No. 212.7 is incomplete and does not include the information required by the Rog’s subsections.

The motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment is GRANTED. Gonzalo Cetina, Jose Jimenez, Jorge Huerta, Edwin Parra, Francisco Real, and Luis Valdivia are ORDERED to provide code-compliant supplemental responses within 30 days.

A party may move to compel a further response to a demand for production of documents if the demanding party deems that the statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; the representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

The motion for Defendant’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents seeks to compel further responses from (1) Gonzalo Cetina, (2) Edwin Parra, and (3) Luis Valdivia.

Gonzalo Cetina responded to RFP Nos. 19, 20, and 34 by stating, in part, that he “provides documents within his custody and control.” Defendant correctly notes that he does not indicate that he is providing all of the responsive documents in his custody or control. Additionally, for RFP No. 34, he objects to providing his tax information. Defendant is requesting “Any and all DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify YOUR current gross, pre-tax income.” This does not require production of tax documents. Gonzalo Cetina is ordered to provide code-compliant supplemental responses within 30 days.

Edwin Parra responded to RFP Nos. 36-37 by stating that he “provides documents within his custody and control.” Defendant correctly notes that he does not indicate that he is providing all of the responsive documents in his custody or control. Edwin Parra is ordered to provide code-compliant supplemental responses within 30 days.

Luis Valdivia responded to RFP Nos. 14, 34, and 36 by stating that he “provides documents within his custody and control.” Defendant correctly notes that he does not indicate that he is providing all of the responsive documents in his custody or control. Additionally, for RFP No. 34, he objects to providing his tax information. Defendant is requesting “Any and all DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify YOUR current gross, pre-tax income.” This does not require production of tax documents. Luis Valdivia is ordered to provide code-compliant supplemental responses within 30 days.

The motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents is GRANTED. Gonzalo Cetina, Edwin Parra, and Luis Valdivia are ORDERED to provide code-compliant supplemental responses within 30 days.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court