KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, ET AL VS. ALEJANDRO IBARRA

B. Legal Standard

“[T]he discovery statutes vest a wide discretion on the trial court in granting or denying discovery.” (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378, superseded by statute.) “‘The standard of review generally applicable to review of discovery orders is abuse of discretion, as management of discovery lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manuel v. Superior Court (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 719, 727, citations omitted.)

May 20, 2026, Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any 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.

Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) The methods of discovery may be used in any sequence, and the fact that a party is conducting discovery by any method shall not operate to delay the discovery of any other party. (Id., § 2019.020)

1. Requests for Production of Documents

Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.010, “[a]ny party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action.” Under Section 2031.010 the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response if the demand is incomplete.

2. Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.010, subdivision (a) describes the scope of permissible discovery by interrogatory. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210, subdivision (a) is unequivocally clear that a written response is required from the party to whom the interrogatories have been served. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, subdivision (a) requires that “[e]ach answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.”

3. Requests for Admission

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 2033.010, “[a]ny party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.010, emphasis added.)

May 20, 2026, Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ C.

Discussion

Discovery is intended to be a self-executing process. (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1434.) The goal of the discovery system — assisting the flow of litigation without judicial intervention — is stymied when it requires the trial court to become involved in discovery because a dispute leads a party to move for an order compelling a response. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1291.)

As the motion is presented to the court omnibus style, the tentative ruling addresses what would generally comprise four separate motions in one single ruling.

1. Motion to Deem Reponses to Request for Admission (Set One) Admitted

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2033.280, subdivision (b), provides that if a party to whom requests for admission have been directed fails to serve a timely response, 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. If the moving party makes a request for an order deeming responses admitted the court is required to grant such motion unless it finds that before the hearing on the motion the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2033.210–2033.230. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

It is well-settled that once a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.) To do so, the responding party must affirmatively show that the burden of responding would be so great, and the benefit of the information sought would be so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the party to answer. (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.)

Ibarra did not request an extension, failed to serve anything by the response deadline, and to date has served no responses. (Bass Decl. ¶ 7.) Nor has he filed a brief in opposition to the instant motion. The court’s review of the discovery demonstrates that KFHP is seeking basic information regarding the claims Ibarra has raised. (Bass Decl. ¶ 6, exh. D.) Exhibit G to the Bass Declaration — email correspondence between Ibarra and KFHP’s law firm regarding discovery responses — makes it abundantly clear that Ibarra believes the discovery responses are not overdue and that he “will not even make any effort whatsoever in regards to providing ‘Code- Complaint responses’ until he receives a response from the court regarding five questions he asked the court. (Bass Decl., exh.

G.) Accordingly, the court finds that Ibarra has abused the discovery process, and the motion is GRANTED in its entirety.

Further, in the complete absence of Ibarra’s response and in the presence of KFHP’s request, the court must grant the motion to deem responses to the requests for admission, set one, as admitted. Because the motion to deem responses admitted is GRANTED, the motion to compel responses is DENIED AS MOOT.

May 20, 2026, Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ 2. The Motion to Compel Ibarra to Respond to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; Form Interrogatories, Set One; and Special Interrogatories, Set One is Granted

As with the Requests for Admissions, Ibarra did not request an extension to respond to the Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; Form Interrogatories, Set One; and Special Interrogatories, Set One; and failed to serve any responses by the deadline, and to date has served no responses. (Bass Decl. ¶ 7.) Nor has he filed a brief in opposition to the instant motion.

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.290, provides that “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: * * * (b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” Absent relief from the court the “party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. . . .” (Id., subd. (a).)

Likewise, Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.300, provides that “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: * * * (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” Absent relief from the court the “party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. . . .” (Id., subd. (a).)

Ibarra’s responses were due within thirty (30) days after the discovery was served. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a), 2031.260, subd. (a).) The court’s review of the discovery demonstrates that KFHP is seeking basic information regarding the claims Ibarra has raised. (Bass Decl. ¶ 6, exhs. C, E-F.) Exhibit G to the Bass Declaration — email correspondence between Ibarra and KFHP’s law firm regarding discovery responses — makes it abundantly clear that Ibarra believes the discovery responses are not overdue and that he “will not even make any effort whatsoever in regards to providing ‘Code-Complaint responses’ until he receives a response from the court regarding five questions he asked the court. (Bass Decl., exh.

G.) Accordingly, the court finds that Ibarra has abused the discovery process, and the motion is GRANTED in its entirety. Ibarra is ORDERED TO SERVE code compliant responses, without objection, to KFHP’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; Form Interrogatories, Set One; and Special Interrogatories, Set One, within thirty (30) days of notice of entry of this Order.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, KFHP’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.