2013-00138681-CU-PO

Jose Alberto Bastidas vs. Ming Lien Lue

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1. Admissions 2. Form Interrogatory 17.1

Filed By: Perlee, Kiersta D.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to request for admissions (set one) and
form interrogatory 17.1 is granted, as set forth below.

RFAs Nos. 3-17, 19, and 21-27

The motion is granted. Plaintiff seeks further substantive responses to the requests for
admissions which it argues are evasive and contain boilerplate objections (e.g., RFAs
nos. 3, 6-8, 17, ) and further responses removing objections where Defendants denied
the requests for admissions (e.g., RFAs nos. 4, 5, 9-16, 19, 21-27.) Defendants
oppose the motion on the basis that they have since provided amended responses
and that there is no basis upon which to compel them to provide further responses
removing their objections.

Here, with respect to the responses which Plaintiff argues in his separate statement
are evasive (e.g. nos. 3, 6-8, 17), Defendants do not counter such argument in their
opposition. For example, in RFA 3, Plaintiff asked Defendants to admit that they
controlled the subject property at the time of the incident. Defendants admitted that
another individual was doing business at the property at the time. This answer is non-
responsive to the call of the question and Defendants do not demonstrate otherwise.
Similar deficiencies exist with the other RFAs.

In addition, with respect to all of the responses, Plaintiff seeks to compel a further
response requiring Defendants to remove their objections. To this end, Defendants
oppose the motion simply by arguing that they timely asserted the objections and there
is no basis upon which to compel them to remove the objections. Defendants are
incorrect. While they timely asserted the objections, on a motion to compel further
responses, it is their burden to justify the objections. The Code specifically allows for a
motion for further responses based on the contention that responses contain
objections that lack merit. (E.g., CCP § 2033.290(a)(2).) In such a circumstance, the
party asserting the objection obviously has the burden to justify the objection. (
Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [citing Coy v. Superior
Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 220-221].) Here, Defendants made no attempt to justify any of
the “boilerplate” objections asserted in response to the requests for admissions.
Indeed, they made no attempt to demonstrate how any of the terms used were “vague,
ambiguous, unintelligible” or why a request was impermissibly “compound, conjunctive
or disjunctive” and thus the objections are overruled. The further responses shall
remove all objections.

The Court rejects Defendants’ contention that the instant motion is premature. Indeed,
the timing of the motion is determined by the date Defendants served their responses.

As a result, the motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs nos. 3-17, 19,
and 21-27 is granted as requested in the moving papers.

Form Interrogatory No. 17.1

The motion to compel a further response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 is granted.
Here given the Court granted the motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s
requests for admissions, Defendants must also provide a further response to Form
Interrogatory No. 17.1 for the corresponding requests for admissions.

Finally, the Court notes that Defendants appear to argue that because they served
amended responses the motion should be denied. The responses served after the
motion was filed, do not moot the motion. Code of Civil Procedure §1005.5 specifically
provides that a motion is deemed made at the time it is filed and served. Plaintiff is still
entitled to an order. However, to the extent any response complies with the above, it
need not be re-served.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.300(d) and 2033.290(d) is
granted. Under the circumstances, Defendants’ opposition to the instant motion was
without substantial justification. Indeed, the opposition did not even attempt to justify
Defendants’ boilerplate objections, objections which case law long ago made clear are
generally improper. (E.g., Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 428-
429). Defendants shall pay to Plaintiff a monetary sanction in the amount of $960
($300/hr x 3 hrs + $60 filing fee). The monetary sanction is to be paid on or before
December 4, 2013. If the sanction is not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare for
the court’s signature a formal order granting the sanction, which may be enforced as a
separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or other notice is required.