Motion Compel

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.July 7, 2017

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER Lorie Williamset alvs David Kraft Hearing Start Time: 9:00 AM 17CV312746 Hearing Type: Motion: Compel Date 0f Hearing: 02/04/2021 Comments: Heard By: Rudy, Christopher G Location: Department 7 Courtroom Reporter: - No Court Reporter Courtroom Clerk: Donna M. O'Hara Court Interpreter: Court Investigator: Parties Present: Future Hearings: Pagano, James Lawrence Attorney Exhibits: A. Nunez-Gonzales is present for defense counsel Cou nsel are present via court call No one called to contest the Tentative Ruling. Motion Hearing: Motion by Defendant/Cross Complaint Kraft to Compel Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Williams to Serve Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (2) Further Responses to Request for Admissions, and (3) and Award Monetary Sa nctions in the Amou nt of $4590.00 Motions GRANTED. Request for sanctions GRANTED in part. The tentative ruling is adopted. See below for ruling. Before the Court is Defendant and Cross Complaint Kraft s (hereinafter Kraft) Motion to Compel Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Williams (hereinafter Williams) to further respond to Form Interrogatories; Requests for Admissions and Request for Monetary Sanctions, and Orders Striking William's' Amended Complaint and Her Answer to Kraft s Cross Complaint. Williams has responded to Kraft s Requests forAdmission with objections as to both form and substa nce. Willia ms responses indicate that while the objection as to form is not waived, the requests are objected to as calling for information that is subject to Attorney Client Privilege; Constitutional Right to Privacy; and Relevance. Printed: 2/5/2021 02/04/202]. Motion: Compel - 17CV312746 Page 1 Of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER After receiving a response, the party who served RFAs may move for an order under CCP 2033.290 compelling further response to particular requests to which the answer is evasive or incomplete or the objection is without merit or too general. The motion must be accompanied by a meet-a nd-com‘er declaration under CCP 2016.040 and a separate statement under Cal Rules of Ct 3.1345. The Court finds that the meet and confer process was adequate. The Court finds that the form of Kraft s Requests for Admissions are not objectionable. The objections as to the form of the requests are overruled. Ta king the objections as to substance in order, the Court overrules the Attorney Client Privilege objections. Whether or not Williams has or has not paid her previous attorney is not privileged information. The Court also overrules the Privacy Objection. The Requests for Admission relate to financial matters that Williams has disclosed in publicly filed documents. To the extent that Williams had a privacy interest in whether or not she had or had not paid her prior attorneys, putting that information in documents that Williams has filed in public Court proceedings waives those rights as to that information. Finally, with respect to Williams Relevance Objections, the Court agrees with Kraft that they are not well taken and they are also overruled. The scope of discovery is broad; the test is whether it appears to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Cal. Code of Civil Procedure 2017(3).) The discovery statutes are to be construed liberally to uphold the right to discovery wherever possible (Emerson Electric Co. v Su perior Court (1997) 16 Cal 4th 1101, 1107.) Courts have reiterated that discovery provisions in the Civil Discovery Act 0f 1986 (CCP 2016 2036) and the Civil Discovery Act (CCP 2016.010 2036.050), are to be liberally construed in favor ofdisclosure. Flagship Theaters of Palm Desert, LLC v. CenturyTheaters, Inc. (201 1) 198 CA4th 1366, 1383, The court ruling on a discovery motion can only attempt to foresee whether it is possible that information in a particular subject area could be relevant or admissible at the time 0f trial. Maldonadov. Superior Court (ICG Telecom Grou p, Ina), 94 CA4th 1390, 1397 (2002). Kraft contends that the responses to the Requests forAdmissions and Form Interrogatories may be releva nt as Evidence Code 1101(b) evidence. This Court makes no ruling as to whether Evidence Code 1101(b) evidence will be admissible at trial, but finds that Kraft is entitled to conduct discovery, within reason, to develop such evidence and to seek its Printed: 2/5/2021 02/04/202]. Motion: Compel - 17CV312746 Page 2 Of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER admissibility attrial. Williams s objections to Kraft s Form Interrogatories were reliant on her Response to the Requests for Admissions. Accordingly, those objections are likewise overruled. Having reviewed the papers and the entire record and Good Cause Appearing the Court makes the following tentative rulings: The Court GRANTS Kraft s Motions to compel further response to Requests for Admissions and Form Interrogatories. Williams must provide supplemental verified, codecompliant responses in to Requests for Admissions and Form Interrogatories accordance with this order within 3O days of the date of the formal Order. As to Kraft s request for Sanctions, this request is DENIED. The Court does not believe monetary sanctions are appropriate on this motion as there was at least some basis for William s arguments The Court will prepare the formal order. Printed: 2/5/2021 02/04/202]. Motion: Compel - 17CV312746 Page 3 Of 3