Case Number: BC669727 Hearing Date: March 09, 2018 Dept: 74

EXCLUSIVELY BY COMMERCE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WILSON TO, ET AL,

Defendants

Case No.: BC669727

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES, IN PART

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted in part. Plaintiff is ordered to provide a further response, without objection, to request for admissions numbers 1, 2 and 5 within 20 days. The request for sanctions is denied.

General Principles

(a) 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.

(b) Each answer 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.

(c) 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.)

Only two of the requests remain at issue. Plaintiff has conceded the merit of the motion as to request numbers 1, 2 and 5. The motion is granted as to those requests.

REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 8:

Admit that the problem with the drapes was not fixed at the time of the EVENT.

RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO.8:

Responding party objects to this Request on the grounds that it is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to Propounding Party’s breach of contract, criminal stop payment of checks and fraud. Responding Party objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms and/or phrases “problems with the drapes” especially considering that a definition of the word problem is, “a question raised for consideration or solution.”

Subject to the Preliminary Statement, the foregoing objections, and Responding Party’s “good faith” understanding of the Request, Responding Party responds as follows:

Deny that there was a “problem” with the drapes in the sense that the term “problem” may imply some type of wrongdoing, because the layout had already been approved and the drapes were hung in accordance therewith.

The objection based on relevance was resolved by the filing of the cross-complaint after the discovery was served. The parties met and conferred regarding the definition of “problem” in this request. Defendant seeks a further response on the grounds that “problem” was clarified.

The response is sufficient. Plaintiff has responded that the drapes were hung in a layout approved by defendants, and there was no problem. Defendants may not agree with the response, but the truthfulness/untruthfulness of a response is not a ground for a further response.

A motion to compel further discovery responses cannot be granted based on the reason that verified answers served are really untrue. (Holguin v. Sup. Ct. (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 812, 820, 821.)

No further response is ordered.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO.9:

Admit that, prior to the EVENT, YOU were notified that one of YOUR PREFERRED VENDORS acted in a rude manner towards Defendants and that it caused the bride, ANNIE YOUNG, to become upset.

RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO.9:

Responding party objects to this Request on the grounds that it is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to Propounding Party’s breach of contract, criminal stop payment of checks and fraud. Responding Party objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms and/or phrases “notified” and “rude manner towards Defendants” as it doçs not identify which vendor is being referred to or which Defendant is being referred to, is it Mr. To, Ms. Young or Ms. Chen?

Subject to the Preliminary Statement, the foregoing objections, and Responding Party’s “good faith” understanding of the Request, Responding Party responds as follows:

Responding Party denies this Request as phrased.

It again appears that defendant disagrees with the response, and states that a notification of the rude manner and reaction of the bride was communicated to plaintiff.

The motion is denied.

Sanctions

The request for sanctions is denied as plaintiff had substantial justification for opposing the motion.