Judge Timothy B. Taylor, Case 37-2022-00047637-CU-UD-CTL 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2022-00047637-CU-UD-CTL, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 15, 2023

08/16/2023 09:30:00 AM C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Unlawful Detainer - Residential Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00047637-CU-UD-CTL BLUE WAVE REAL ESTATE INC VS NARVAEZ [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 08/10/2023

Tentative Rulings on Defense Motions to Compel Discovery

Blue Wave Real Estate Inc. v. Narvaez, Case No. 2022-47637 August 16, 2023, 9:30 a.m., Dept. 72 (special set) 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

This is a residential UD case involving a house on Via Bartolo in San Diego. Plaintiff alleges that defendants defaulted in the payment of rent starting in May of 2022. A three day notice to pay rent or quit was served in November of 2022.* This action was filed shortly thereafter and assigned to Judge Braner. ROA 7.

Defendants filed a motion to quash, to which they appended a CCP section 170.6 challenge. ROA 11.

Plaintiff filed opposition to the motion to quash. ROA 15. There were appellate proceedings regarding the challenge which need not be recounted here. ROA 50.

The case was eventually reassigned to Dept. 72 in April, 2023. The court set and noticed a CMC. ROA 45, 53-55. Plaintiff sought an order via ex parte application (ROA 48) which the court was obliged to deny because of service issues. ROA 65. However, the CMC was properly noticed, so the court went forward with that hearing even though defendants failed to appear. The court set the case for trial on July 14. ROA 59-61. The court also ordered the motion to quash submitted on the previously filed briefs and denied it. ROA 66-67.

Thereafter, the court overruled defendants' demurrer. ROA 99. Defendants finally answered, and then sought to disqualify the court. ROA 110, 117. The latter paper was ordered stricken. ROA 121.

Plaintiffs then sought an order striking defendants' jury demand. ROA 109, 113. Following full briefing and argument, the court denied the motion and re-set the case for a jury trial on August 25, 2023. ROA 123.

On August 9, 2023, one of the defendants appeared ex parte, seeking to delay the trial.** ROA 129.

The court denied the application, finding an inadequate affirmative showing of good cause. ROA 138.

The court did, however, grant alternative relief: the court set today's discovery motions on shortened time. ROA 138. The court has reviewed the ensuing briefing. ROA 140-152.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3006776 4 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: BLUE WAVE REAL ESTATE INC VS NARVAEZ [IMAGED] 37-2022-00047637-CU-UD-CTL 2. Applicable Standards.

A. A civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.

'[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.

'California's civil discovery process aims to unearth the truth of the case, thus facilitating settlement on the basis of the mutually expected value of the suit.' Field v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 703, 705.

B. Answers to interrogatories must be complete and responsive. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783. After receiving a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move to compel a further response if an answer is evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce documents under section 2030.230 is unwarranted or not sufficiently specific, or an objection to an interrogatory is meritless or too general. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a). 'While the party propounding interrogatories may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.' Williams, 3 Cal.5th at 541.

C. There are two statutes that concern themselves with motions to compel in the context of document requests. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 permits a party to move to compel a further response to an inspection demand when: (1) the responding party's response is incomplete, (2) a claim that the responding party cannot comply is defective, or (3) an objection is defective. Conversely, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320 deals with situations where the responding party files a response to an inspection demand and then fails to permit the inspection.

D. A party may request that another litigant 'admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.010. Each response to the RFAs must be 'complete and straightforward.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220(a). If the propounding party believes that the responses to RFAs are deficient in some respect or that any objections thereto are not well taken, he or she may make a motion to compel further responses. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290.

3. Discussion and Rulings.

A. The motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents is granted in part and denied in part.

The motion is granted as to requests 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, and 20. Plaintiff's responses do not technically comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220. That section requires, among other things, a statement that 'all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.220. Accordingly, plaintiff must serve a further verified response confirming that all nonprivileged documents in plaintiff's possession, custody, or control that are responsive to requests 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, and 20 have been produced. The further verified response must be served by August 18, 2023.

The motion is granted as to requests 10, 11, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27.*** Plaintiff's responses do not technically comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230. That section requires the responding party to 'affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand.' Code Civ. Proc. § 203.230. As such, plaintiff must serve a further verified response affirming that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with requests 10, 11, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27. The further verified response must be served by August 18, 2023.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3006776 4 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: BLUE WAVE REAL ESTATE INC VS NARVAEZ [IMAGED] 37-2022-00047637-CU-UD-CTL The motion is granted as to request 12. Plaintiff did not respond to this request. Thus, plaintiff must serve a verified response and produce the requested documents (to the extent any exist) by August 18, 2023.

The motion is denied as to requests 4, 15, 16, and 17. These requests are not set forth in the separate statement. CRC 3.1345(c)(1).

B. The motion to compel further responses to requests for admission 1-27 is denied. Sufficient responses have been provided. The court declines to order plaintiff to remove the objections preceding its substantive responses.

C. The motion to compel initial responses to requests for admission 28-49 is denied as moot. Verified responses have been provided. (Marshall Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. 1.) D. The motion to compel a further response to form interrogatory 17.1 is denied as moot. Supplemental verified responses haven been provided. (Marshall Decl., ¶¶ 7-8; Ex. 2.) E. Defendant's requests for monetary sanctions are denied. The court finds that circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

__________________________ *Evidently plaintiff's efforts to evict defendant began much earlier than this. Defendants contend there have been four prior UD cases.

**Unlawful detainer actions are designed to be expedited, and there are limitations imposed on pleadings and issues that may be litigated. The only 'triable' issue is the right to possession and incidental damages resulting from the unlawful detention. Larsori v. City & County of San Francisco (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1297; Lincoln Place Tenants Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 425, 452; Underwood v. Corsino (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 132, 135. Affirmative defenses may be pleaded only to the extent they might defeat the landlord's right to possession. See Green v. Super. Ct. (1974) 10 Cal. 3d 616, 632-33. Indeed, the issues in unlawful detainer actions are so 'strictly limited that defendants cannot file cross-complaints.' (Union Oil Co. v. Chandler (1970) 4 Cal. App. 3d 716, 721]. Tenants are subject to eviction if they or their subtenants continue in possession after defaulting on agreed-upon rent. C.C.P. 1161(2), 1161.1. The legislative intent behind the UD structure certainly has been frustrated in this case.

***Requests 24, 26, and 27 were erroneously labeled in the separate statement as request 25.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3006776 4