Case Number: BC513792 Hearing Date: January 12, 2018 Dept: NCD
TENTATIVE RULING
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
(CCP § 2033.290, et seq.)
Calendar: 18
Date: 1/12/18
Case No: BC 513792 Trial Date: May 21, 2018
Case Name: Roberts v. T Mobile USA Inc., et al.
Moving Party: Defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Co. dba AT&T
Responding Party: Plaintiff Kevin Roberts (No Opposition)
RULING:
[No Opposition]
UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Pacific Bell Telephone’s Request for Admission, Set No. One, is GRANTED.
Plaintiff Kevin Roberts is ordered to serve further non-evasive responses to Requests Nos. 14-19, without objection, which directly respond to the requests. The court does not find appropriate or credible a response that plaintiff lacks information concerning whether he himself has evidence concerning the subject issues.
Monetary sanctions requested by the moving party are GRANTED. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,022.50 [$1,022.50 requested] are awarded against plaintiff Kevin Roberts, and his attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within thirty days. CCP § 2033.290 (d), 2023.010(d), (e) and (f), and 2023.030(a).
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Further Responses to Request for Admissions
CRC separate statement, etc.: ok
DECLARATION SUPPORTING MOTION:
Reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally: ok, Exhibits C, D
CHRONOLOGY
Date Discovery served: May 22, 2017
Date Responses served: September 14, 2017
Date Motion served: October 13, 2017 Timely
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
Plaintiff Kevin Roberts alleges that defendant Omnipoint Communications, a subsidiary of defendant T Mobile USA, leased a portion the City of Glendale’s property to install and maintain a Telecommunications tower, and that defendants unlawfully planted an electrical wire with other telephone wires via an underground conduit from T Mobile’s electric transformer in violation of applicable building codes, electric codes and building and safety codes. Plaintiff alleges that the tower was maintained to receive high voltage electricity despite various municipal code violations and filed inspection reports issued by the City of Glendale.
On June 29, 2011, plaintiff Roberts was instructed by his employer, Gold Coast Construction, Inc., to remove telephone wires from a conduit that contained a live high voltage electric wire, but was not warned by anyone that a high voltage current was running with the telephone wires, and while performing his work came into contact with a live electric wire carrying a high voltage, and as a result was electrocuted, and sustained injuries.
ANALYSIS:
Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action…if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The section provides that “discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party,” and that 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…tangible thing.”
Under CCP Section 2033.290:
“(a) 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 apply:
An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete.”
The motion seeks further responses to RFAs Nos. 14-19, which seek to have plaintiff admit that he has no evidence that Pacific Bell is liable for plaintiff’s injuries or damages, that Pacific Bell had notice of the placement of an electrical wire within its pull box, and that Pacific Bell was notified of any code violations prior to the incident.
The response to each is
“Plaintiff does not have sufficient information to admit or deny it.”
These responses are made under CCP section 2033.220(c), which provides:
“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 readily known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.”
The responses here do not state that a reasonable inquiry has been made, and that information readily known or obtainable is insufficient to enable plaintiff to admit the matter, and further code compliant responses should be ordered to be served.
The motion also argues that since the RFAs request plaintiff to admit or deny he currently has evidence to support the various claims, he must have sufficient information to admit or deny such matters.
This certainly appears to be the case, and the motion is granted and plaintiff is ordered to serve responses which nonevasively address the specific RFAs.
Sanctions
Moving party seeks sanctions.
CCP § 2033.290 (d) provides that the court “shall impose a monetary sanction…against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
Under CRC Rule 3.1348(a): “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”
Here, plaintiff has made evasive responses, failed to respond to meet and confer efforts, and made the motion necessary. There is no opposition here, so no showing that plaintiff acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances would make the imposition of sanctions unjust.
The sanctions sought are $1,022.50, which appear reasonable.