GONZALEZ vs PENSKE LEASING AND RENTAL COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.

This number of requests for admission is warranted under Section 2033.040 of the Code of Civil Procedure because despite being in possession of a “Root Cause Analysis” finding Defendant’s driver at fault for this collision defense fails to admit liability. Further, Defendant refuses to produce a corporate representative to testify on topics directly relevant to liability and comparative fault. Furthermore, Mr. Gonzalez sustained permanent injuries as a result of this crash and has been recommended two surgeries and other invasive procedures. These requests are necessary to narrow the number of remaining issues to be litigated at trial and isolate the necessary treaters and experts needed to testify at trial.

(Wild Decl. Exh. 3.)

Defendant now moves for a protective order on the grounds that (1) the number of RFAs is unwarranted; (2) RFAs Nos. 20-22, 25, and 36-107 need not be answered; (3) if required to answer, the responses to RFA Nos. 20-22, 25, and 36-107 be sealed; and (4) to the extent necessary, the time to respond to the outstanding RFAs be extended. Defendant also requests monetary sanctions.

Subject to the right of a responding party to seek a protective order, any party who attaches a supporting declaration as set forth under C.C.P. § 2033.080 may propound a greater number of requests for admissions to another party if this greater number is warranted because of the complexity or the quantity of existing and potential issues in the case. (C.C.P. § 2033.040(a).) If the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of requests for admission is unwarranted, the propounding party shall have the burden of justifying the number of these requests. (C.C.P. § 2033.040(b).) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party from unwarranted oppression or undue burden. (C.C.P. § 2033.080(b).)

Unlike interrogatories, depositions, and document demands, which are designed to uncover factual information, requests for admissions are to “set issues at rest by compelling admissions of things that cannot be reasonably be controverted.” (LCPFV, LLC v. Somatdary Inc. (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 743, 755.) “A trial court must judge whether use of a request for admissions is in conformity with the spirit of the law and serves substantial justice When a court is ‘troubled’ by the way a party has used requests for admissions, the court may take corrective action.” (Id., internal citations omitted.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV111803: GONZALEZ vs PENSKE LEASING AND RENTAL COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 07/15/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order filed by Young's Market Company, LLC, a business entity (Defendant) + CRS# 170396501331 in Department 20 Requests for Admissions are not to be employed as a substitute for discovery to uncover evidence, and other discovery methods should be used to determine an opposing party’s knowledge relative to the existence of facts. (International Harvester Co. v. Superior Court of Shasta County (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 652, 655.) RFAs are intended to narrow issues and save the time and expense of preparing unnecessary proof. (Miller v. Marina Mercy Hospital (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 765, 769.)

Here, Plaintiff’s use of RFAs, and the unjustified number of requests, appears to be a misuse of discovery rather than a means to narrow the issues; as such, it creates an undue burden on Defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel’s amended declaration does not identify the complexity or quantity of existing or potential issues in the case to justify 107 RFAs. The declaration instead discusses Defendant’s denial of liability, as well as Plaintiff’s injuries, which do not appear to be so complex to warrant the number of RFAs served. Plaintiff’s opposition contends that the admissions are sought “on the basis of [the parties’] unreasonable liability dispute.” (Opp. Br. at p. 5.) Plaintiff does not otherwise contend that the case is so complex and involves such a number of issues to warrant the number of requests.

RFAs Nos. 40-107 improperly seek admissions relating to specific medical issues and injuries. For example, RFA 43 states, “Admit that tenderness to palpitation is an objective clinical finding.” RFA 67 states, “Admit that pars defects can contribute to spinal instability.” RFA 79 states, “Admit the CERIVAL MRI demonstrated loss of normal cervical lordosis.” Such requests do not appear to be targeted at narrowing issues at trial where experts will likely opine as to Plaintiff’s injuries and the causation of the same. Expert opinion is properly obtained through expert disclosure and deposition. (C.C.P. §§ 2034.210, 2034.430.)

Based upon the foregoing, Defendant Young’s motion for protective order is GRANTED. Defendant Young’s is not required to respond to RFA Nos. 20-22, 25, and 36-107.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions of $1,950 against Plaintiff, at the hourly rate of $650. (Wild Decl. ¶ 8.) Counsel states that she incurred 2 hours preparing the instant motion, and anticipates another hour for reply and the hearing.

The sheer number of the RFAs propounded in this non-complex motor vehicle accident case indicate that the discovery was intended to harass or create an undue burden on Defendant. Moreover, a significant number of the requests improperly sought information that would invade upon the attorney work product privilege and require the premature disclosure of expert opinion.

As such, the Court awards Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions. Plaintiff shall pay

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV111803: GONZALEZ vs PENSKE LEASING AND RENTAL COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 07/15/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order filed by Young's Market Company, LLC, a business entity (Defendant) + CRS# 170396501331 in Department 20 Defendant Young’s $1,950 by July 27, 2026.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select "Search" 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select "Proceed" BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.