Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 22STCV21229, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

On February 3, 2023, Plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox filed three motions to compel Defendant Miguel Arteaga’s further responses to discovery.

On August 10, 2023, the Court continued the hearings on the motions and ordered the parties to meet and confer and file the required joint statements.

Under the Court’s First Amended General Order for electronic filing, “[e]lectronic documents must be electronically filed in PDF, text searchable format when technologically feasible without impairment of the document’s image.” (General Order No. 2019-GEN-014-00, at ¶ 6(a).) Additionally, the table of contents and all attachments, including exhibits, must be bookmarked. (General Order No. 2019-GEN-014-00, at ¶¶ 6(b)-(d); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f)(4).)

The parties’ filings do not comply with these requirements. Each filing is between 86 and 359 pages with multiple exhibits, but without any bookmarks. If the parties continue to electronically file noncompliant documents, the Court may strike the filings or issue sanctions.

A party may move to compel a further response to requests for admission if the demanding party deems an answer to be evasive or incomplete, or if an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a).)

Defendant’s further response to RFA No. 2 stated, “Denied.” This is a complete answer, even if Plaintiff does not believe the denial. The motion is DENIED.

RFA No. 12 asks Defendant to “Admit that YOU did not fully perform all contractual and statutory obligations under the Retainer Agreement YOU signed with The Law Firm Of Fox And Fox.” Defendant’s objections for vagueness, ambiguity, speculation, unintelligence, burden, and oppression are overruled. The motion is GRANTED. Defendant must provide a code-compliant response to RFP No. 12 within 30 days. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220.)

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 an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Form Rog No. 17.1 requests that for any RFA that is not an unqualified admission, Defendant “(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 the facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.”

RFA No. 2 asked Defendant to “Admit that YOU read and understood all of the terms in the Retainer Agreement with THE LAW FIRM OF FOX AND FOX at the time that YOU signed it on September 29, 2021, concerning YOUR representation by PLAINTIFF in the dissolution of marriage proceeding, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, case number 21STFL09806.” Plaintiff’s supplemental response was a denial. For Form Rog No. 17.1, Plaintiff responded: (a) 2. (b) I was only instructed to sign and initial the retainer agreement. (c) Frank O. Fox. (d) Other than the retainer agreement there none.” This is a complete response. The motion is DENIED.

RFA No. 12 asked Defendant to “Admit that YOU did not fully perform all contractual and statutory obligations under the Retainer Agreement YOU signed with THE LAW FIRM OF FOX AND FOX.” Plaintiff provided only objections. For Form Rog No. 17.1, Plaintiff did not respond. The motion is GRANTED. Defendant must provide supplemental responses within 30 days.

RFA No. 15 asked Defendant to “Admit that true and correct copies of the monthly statements that YOU received from THE LAW FIRM OF FOX AND FOX, concerning the work performed and the costs incurred on YOUR behalf, in the dissolution of marriage proceeding, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, case number 2lSTFL09806, are attached hereto and cumulatively labeled Exhibit ‘B.’” Plaintiff’s original response was a denial, and his supplemental response stated, “Without an admission as to whether said statements and costs accurately reflect the actual reasonable costs incurred and earned fees by plaintiff, defendant admits he receive[d] said statements.” For Form Rog No. 17.1, Plaintiff did not respond. The motion is GRANTED. Defendant must provide 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).)

RFP No. 1 requests “Any and all DOCUMENTS referenced in YOUR responses to the Special Interrogatories, Set Number One, served by Plaintiff.” Defendant’s supplemental response stated, “There are no documents and never have been in response to this interrogatory.” However, Plaintiff’s responses to Special Interrogatories did reference documents. The motion is GRANTED. Defendant must provide supplemental responses within 30 days.

RFP No. 2 requests “Any and all DOCUMENTS referenced in YOUR responses to the Form Interrogatories-General, Set Number One, served by Plaintiff.” Defendant objected, stating that it would be an oppressive and unduly burdensome process to copy the full case file from his marriage dissolution. Plaintiff identifies seven responses that referred to documents, and Plaintiff has not shown that producing these documents would indeed be oppressive and burdensome. The motion is GRANTED. Defendant must provide supplemental responses within 30 days.

RFP No. 3 requests “Any and all DOCUMENTS referenced in YOUR responses to the Requests For Admissions, Set Number One, served by Plaintiff.” Defendant’s supplemental response stated, “There are no documents referenced in defendant’s responses to request for admissions, and there never has been.” Defendant’s responses to the RFAs do not refer to any documents. The motion is DENIED.

For RFP Nos. 4-14, 16-17, and 20, Defendant responded, “See attached communications,” “See attached receipts,” “See attached documents,” “See attached Document,” or “See attached Minute Orders.” This is insufficient. “Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, subd. (a).) The motion is GRANTED. Defendant must provide supplemental responses that identify which documents correspond with each request within 30 days.

For RFP No. 15, Defendant responded, “See attached monthly billing statements which were attached to your Complaint on file herein as Exhibit ‘B.’” This identifies the documents. The motion is DENIED.

For RFP Nos. 18-19, Defendant responded, “Following a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry respondent is unable to produce any such documents because to the best of respondent’s knowledge no such documents have ever existed.” This is a compliant response. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) The motion is DENIED.

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