Alison E Chase vs Brian M Metcalf et al

Case Number

21CV02245

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 09/12/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Submit Concise Outline of Discovery Requests and Responses

Tentative Ruling

For all reasons discussed herein, defendant and cross-complainant Brian M. Metcalf’s motion for authorization to submit concise outline of discovery requests and responses in support of motion to compel and order for extension of time to file a motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, set one, is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

1. Brian M. Metcalf may submit a concise outline of discovery requests and responses in support of a motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, set one.
2. The request for an extension of time to file a motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, set one, is denied.
3. The parties are ordered to further meet and confer regarding the responses to Special Interrogatories, set one, prior to the filing of any motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, set one.

Background:

This is an action for partition by sale of real property. Plaintiff is Alison E. Chase. Defendants are Brian M. Metcalf and Pentagon Federal Credit Union. (Pentagon Federal Credit Union has since been dismissed.)

As alleged in the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) filed by plaintiff on December 16, 2021, by grant deed dated March 20, 2018, Gary Gordon, Trustee of the Edmond W. Gordon Separate Property Trust, transferred title to real property located at 1790 Eucalyptus Hill Road, Santa Barbara, California (the property) to plaintiff and defendant as joint tenants. Plaintiff and defendant each hold an undivided one-half fee simple interest in the property. Pentagon Federal Credit Union is the owner of a $1,252,000 note secured by a deed of trust on the Property. After the parties’ relationship ended, plaintiff suggested to defendant that they list the property for sale. Defendant allegedly refused. Plaintiff then requested that defendant pay plaintiff the equity in the property proportionate to her ownership interest. Defendant, again, allegedly refused. As tenant-in-possession, defendant has allegedly excluded plaintiff from the property by changing the locks to the residence without plaintiff’s consent. Finally, defendant has allegedly failed and refused to provide plaintiff with a copy of the notice of sale, assignment, and transfer of note that was issued after the property was refinanced and the note secured by the property was transferred from the original lender to Pentagon Federal Credit Union. The SAC alleges a single cause of action for partition by sale of real property.

Metcalf answered the SAC and cross-complained against plaintiff. In his operative first amended cross-complaint (FACC), Metcalf alleges causes of action for (1) constructive fraud, (2) fraud by misrepresentation, (3) negligence, (4) breach of contract, (5) promissory estoppel, (6) breach of fiduciary duty, (7) accounting, (8) declaratory relief, (9) unjust enrichment, and (10) equitable indemnity. The court sustained plaintiff’s demurrer to the third and tenth causes of action for negligence and equitable indemnity without leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an answer to the FACC on February 15, 2022, and on the same date, filed a cross-complaint to the FACC against defendant. Chase’s cross-complaint alleges causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) promissory estoppel, (3) fraud, (4) breach of fiduciary duty, (5) ouster, (6) conversion, (7) unjust enrichment, and (8) accounting. Among her other prayers for relief, Chase seeks exemplary damages.

There have been several discovery disputes in this matter, and now Metcalf moves for orders (1) authorizing him to submit a concise outline of discovery requests and responses in support of a motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, and (2) an extension of time to file a motion to compel further responses to those interrogatories.

Chase opposes the motion.

Analysis:

            Separate Statement

“The California Rules of Court provide that a motion to compel production of documents at a deposition must be accompanied by a separate statement, which is “ ‘a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.’ ” (Rule 3.1345(c).)” (In re Marriage of Moore (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1275, 1296.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(2) provides that a separate statement in support of a motion to compel further responses to discovery, among other motions, is not required: “When a court has allowed the moving party to submit--in place of a separate statement--a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (b)(2) provides: “In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.”

Here, Metcalf declares, and Chase does not dispute:

“[T]he Second Responses contain 800 pages and Third Responses contain approximately 500 pages of additional . . . answers. Thus, in the aggregate, the First Responses, Second Responses, and Third Responses contain over 1,675 of largely identical . . . answers that were copied and repeated multiple times in the same form throughout the responses, thereby inflating their length without adding any real differentiating or materially distinguishing substance between them. Based on my review and analysis of the First Responses, Second Responses, and Third Responses, a comparatively small number of identical and lengthy responses were copied and repeated in response to each separate interrogatory and comprise nearly all of Chase’s answers to the Special Interrogatories in their entirety.” (Metcalf Decl., ¶ 14.)

Metcalf has provided samples of the Special Interrogatories and responses, as Exhibits A through E to his declaration, and they are indeed lengthy, consisting of numerous objections and other information which would make a traditional, code-compliant, separate statement cumbersome and inefficient.

Metcalf will be permitted to file and serve a concise outline of the discovery requests at issue and each response in dispute. He is cautioned, however, that the outline must be well organized and serve the same function as a separate statement by providing all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses that are at issue. An outline that attempts to mischaracterize the requests and responses will be unacceptable. An inadequate outline may be grounds for denying the motion.

            Extension of Time to File Motion to Compel Further Responses

“If answers or objections are on file, and the propounding party deems that further response is required, he must file a motion to compel further answers within 30 days [now 45 days] after the date of service of answers or objections, unless there is a stipulation extending time, or the court, on motion and notice, and for good cause shown, enlarges the time.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 788.)

Metcalf has not demonstrated good cause for the granting of an extension. According to Metcalf’s declaration: The Special Interrogatories were served on April 26, 2024 (¶ 2), and Chase served its initial responses on June 14, 2024 (¶ 4). Following meet and confer efforts, as well as a previously filed motion to compel, Chase served supplemental responses on October 28, 2024 (¶ 7). Following additional meet and confer efforts, Chase served its second amended and supplemental responses on June 10, 2025 (¶ 10.) Chase has given extensions to Metcalf to file a motion to compel as to the second amended responses, with the current deadline being September 25, 2025 (¶ 13).

Metcalf will have had over three-months from the time the last responses were served on him and the agreed upon deadline for the filing of a motion to compel. While the court appreciates the time it will take Metcalf to prepare an adequate and code-compliant motion, he has had more than enough time to do so. No extension will be granted.

The parties will be ordered to further meet and confer regarding any disputes with the discovery requests. The parties should keep in mind:

“Civil discovery is intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention. “ ‘[I]t is a ‘ “central precept” ’ of the Civil Discovery Act . . . that discovery ‘ “be essentially self-executing[.]” ’ ” [Citations.]” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390.)