Debra Chimet vs. William Hall

34-2022-00320281-CU-OR-GDS: Debra Chimet vs. William Hall 06/04/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses Deems Matters Admitted in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing

34-2022-00320281-CU-OR-GDS: Debra Chimet vs. William Hall 06/04/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses Deems Matters Admitted in Department 53

or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant and Cross-Complainant William T. Hall’s (“Hall”) “motion to compel further answers and/or to deem as admitted requests for admissions set 2” is ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise them of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.

The notice of motion does not include an address for the Court. The address for Department 53 of the Sacramento Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento, California 95814.

This motion seeks multiple forms of relief regarding written discovery (compel further responses and deem matters admitted), each of which contemplates a separate motion. Instead of filing separate motions as to each relief sought, which is preferred by the Court, Defendant filed a singular omnibus motion. The Court notes separate motions are not required by the Code, but combining multiple forms of relief into one motion creates unnecessary complications for the Court in evaluating each motion.

Background

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Debra Chiment (“Chiment”) filed the instant complaint for partition against Hall on May 19, 2022. Hall cross-complained for cancellation of deeds and quiet title. Pertinent to the instant motion, Hall served Chiment with requests for admission, set two on December 29, 2023. (Declaration of Scott Talkov (“Talkov Decl.”) ¶3, Exh. 1.) Chiment provided responses to these requests on January 30, 2024. (Talkov Decl. ¶4, Exh. 2.) The Parties met and conferred regarding these responses but were unable to resolve their dispute. (Talkov Decl. ¶¶5-7, 12.)

Hall now moves for the following orders: (1) to compel further responses to some of the request for admissions; (2) to deem admitted some requests for admission regarding genuineness of certain documents; and (3) for monetary sanctions. Chiment opposes Hall’s motion to compel further responses and for monetary sanctions. Chiment’s opposition is silent on Hall’s request to deem the genuineness of certain documents admitted. The Court notes that given the Court Holiday on May 27, 2024, opposition was due on May 21, 2024. Chiment’s opposition is one

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00320281-CU-OR-GDS: Debra Chimet vs. William Hall 06/04/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses Deems Matters Admitted in Department 53

day late. Nevertheless, in its discretion, the Court shall consider the opposition.

Legal Standard

“[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that 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.) “In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad...[and] statutes governing discovery ‘must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes for denial.’ [Citation.]” (Williams v.

Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; see also Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378 [“disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it”].) Nevertheless, while civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless. (Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1039 [citing Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223].) It cannot be based on pure speculation. (Digital Music News LLC v.

Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 227.)

The party seeking to resist discovery based upon objections has the burden to justify its objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 220-221].) Information is relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. [citations omitted] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 [emphasis in original].) “Any doubts regarding relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery.” (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98.)

“The party to whom requests for admission have been directed shall respond in writing under oath separately to each request.” (Code Civ. Proc. §2033.210, subd. (a).) “Each response shall answer the substance of the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request.” (Code Civ. Proc. §2033.210, subd. (b).) “Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and shall “(1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party. [¶] (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue. [¶] (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.” (Code Civ.

Proc. §2033.220, subds. (a)-(b).)

“On 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00320281-CU-OR-GDS: Debra Chimet vs. William Hall 06/04/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses Deems Matters Admitted in Department 53

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, subd. (a).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 also provides the following:

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

(b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). (c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.

(Emphasis added.)

Discussion

Hall’s motion to have Request for Admission of Genuineness of Documents Nos.1-4 is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED. Hall provided notice of the motion to deem these matters admitted in its Notice of Motion, identified the documents to be deemed admitted genuine in its separate statement, and provided evidence that no responses to these requests were ever provided. Chiment filed an opposition in relation to other requests but failed to address Hall’s arguments related to these requests. A party’s failure to address an argument in its opposition is construed as a concession on the merits of that argument. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn.4.)

Hall also moves to compel Chiment’s responses to Request for Admissions Nos. 1-7. First, Hall argues that Chiment’s objections are without merit. Chiment asserts the following objections to these Requests: that they are ambiguous, confusing not reasonably particularized, uncertain, totally unintelligible, vague, overbroad as to time and therefore burdensome. (See Talkov Decl., Exh. 2.) Chiment seeks to justify the overbroad objection by arguing that the requests are overbroad on their face as they span over a 25-year time frame. (Opp. 4:26-27.) The objection is overruled. In response to a request for admission, a party may “[a]dmit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00320281-CU-OR-GDS: Debra Chimet vs. William Hall 06/04/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses Deems Matters Admitted in Department 53

clearly qualified by the responding party.” (See Code Civ. Proc. §2033.220 [emphasis added].) While the request may involve a 25-year timeframe, that timeframe is nevertheless relevant to the instant action. To the extent that the request is overbroad, Chiment may “reasonably and clearly qualify” its responses to provide an answer. Chiment has not justified any of her other objections. They are therefore overruled. (See Fairmont Ins. Co., supra, 22 Cal.4th at 255.)

Nevertheless, Hall’s request to compel further responses to these RFAs is denied. As noted earlier, a party responding to a request for admissions may respond in three ways: admit the request, deny the request, or state that it has insufficient knowledge to admit or deny the request. (Code Civ. Proc. §2033.220, subds. (a)-(b).) “If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (Code Civ.

Proc. §2033.220.) Despite its prefatory objections which have now been overruled, Chiment provided a verified response that is technically compliant with section 2033.220. (See Talkov Decl., Exh. 2.) That is, Chiment did not respond to RFA nos. 1-7 solely by objection, but also provided a verified response regarding her lack of information and knowledge to enable her to admit. (Ibid.) To the extent Hall may be suggesting the Court should “compel” Chiment to admit any or all of the subject requests, such an order would clearly be contrary to current California law. (See, e.g., Holguin v.

Superior Court (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 812, 820 [court cannot compel an admission even if request relates to fact that is unquestionably true].) Hall is not without redress, however. “If a party fails to admit the genuineness of any document or the truth of any matter when requested to do so under this chapter, and if the party requesting that admission thereafter proves the genuineness of that document or the truth of that matter, the party requesting the admission may move the court for an order requiring the party to whom the request was directed to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, including reasonable attorney’s fees.” (Code Civ.

Proc. §2033.420, subd. (a).) Hall’s reliance on apparent statements made in meet-and-confers with opposing counsel is immaterial. Chiment has provided and stood by her verified responses.

Accordingly, Hall’s motion to compel further responses to RFA nos. 1-7 is DENIED.

Hall’s request for sanctions is also DENIED. First, Hall’s motion is a combined motion to compel further responses and to deem matters admitted. As a singular motion, it is granted in part and denied in part. Thus, the Court finds that Chiment was substantially justified in opposing the motion given the mixed result. Second, even if the Court were to treat these as two separate motions for purposes of awarding sanctions, Hall has not provided information for the court to sufficiently determine sanctions as to the request to deem matters admitted which was granted. Hall provides the declaration of Scott Talkov, who avers that he and two other attorneys in his office worked on the instant motion. The declaration does not distinguish between work done for the motion to compel further responses and the motion to deem matters admitted. As

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00320281-CU-OR-GDS: Debra Chimet vs. William Hall 06/04/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses Deems Matters Admitted in Department 53

such, the Court cannot accurately determine the appropriate sanctions. As noted earlier, while not required by Code, combining multiple forms of relief into one motion creates unnecessary complications for the Court in evaluating each motion.

For the foregoing reasons, Hall’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Disposition

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Hall’s motion to compel further responses and to deem matters admitted is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED as to having Request for Admissions of the Genuineness of Documents nos. 1-4 deemed admitted. The motion is DENIED as to Hall’s request to compel Chiment to provide further responses.

Hall’s request for sanctions is DENIED for the reasons indicated above.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rule of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.