Tentative Ruling: B E vs DOE 1 et al
Case Number
22CV04772
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Wed, 04/01/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Motion: Compel re FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE) AND FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) FROM DEFENDANT DOE 1
Tentative Ruling
HEARING
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set Two, Request for Monetary Sanctions
ATTORNEYS
For Plaintiff B.E.: Michael W. Carney, Veronica Mittino, Magnus Forsythe, Slater Slater Schulman LLP
For Defendant Doe 1: Brett Schoel, Kristine Balogh, La Follette Johnson DeHaasFesler & Ames
RULING
For the reasons stated herein, the hearing on plaintiff’s motion to compel Doe 1 to provide further responses to plaintiff’s requests for admission, further responses to form interrogatories, and for monetary sanctions, is continued to May 13, 2026. The parties shall further meet and confer in accordance with this ruling, either in person, by virtual meeting, or by telephone, and, on or before April 20, 2026, file a joint report or, if necessary, file and serve individual status reports, addressing each of the matters described herein including which, if any, issues remain for determination by the court.
B.E. shall file and serve a code-compliant separate statement of discovery items in dispute no later than April 22, 2026. Doe 1 shall file and serve its responsive separate statement, if any, no later than May 6, 2026.
Background
This action commenced on December 2, 2022, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff B.E. against Doe 1, a Corporation, Doe 2, an individual, and Does 3 through 60 for (1) sexual assault of a minor, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (3) negligent supervision, hiring, and retention, (4) negligent supervision of a minor, (5) failure to report suspected child abuse in violation of Penal Code section 11165, et seq., and (6) negligence.
The complaint alleges that B.E. was the victim of childhood sexual assault by Doe 2, while a resident at Doe 1’s facility, where Doe 2 was employed, in approximately 1991 when B.E. was approximately 15 years old.
On April 3, 2023, Doe 1 answered the complaint with a general denial and 13 affirmative defenses.
On July 16, 2024, B.E. dismissed Doe 2 without prejudice.
On August 22, 2025, B.E. served Doe 1 with requests for admission, set one (RFA’s), and form interrogatories, set two (FI’s). (Forsythe Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.)
On October 1, 2025, Doe 1 served responses to the RFA’s and FI’s. (Forsythe Decl., ¶ 3 & Exh. B.)
Following attempts to meet and confer, and granting of mutual extensions, B.E. filed the present motion to compel further responses to the RFA’s and FI’s.
Doe 1 opposes the motion.
Analysis
There are issues with the motion that must be addressed prior to the court ruling on the motion.
B.E. appears to be seeking further responses to RFA Nos. 1, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. B.E. appears to be seeking further responses to FI No. 17.1 as it pertains to Doe 1’s responses to 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 18, 19, 23, and 24.
A separate statement is required for both the motion to compel further responses to RFAs and the motion to compel further responses to FIs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(1), (a)(2).)
While B.E. has provided what is purported to be a separate statement, it is not compliant.
“A separate statement 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. The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference. The separate statement must include--for each discovery request (e.g., each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested--the following:
“(1) The text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection demand;
“(2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers;
“(3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute;
“(4) If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it;
“(5) If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth; and
“(6) If the pleadings, other documents in the file, or other items of discovery are relevant to the motion, the party relying on them must summarize each relevant document.
“(d) Identification of interrogatories, demands, or requests.
A motion concerning interrogatories, inspection demands, or admission requests must identify the interrogatories, demands, or requests by set and number.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c)(d), italics added.)
B.E.’s separate statement is, at best, confusing. Despite B.E.’s argument in the reply brief, it does not separately address the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses to each matter in dispute. Rather, it sets forth each RFA and each response to the RFAs. It then sets forth Doe 1’s responses to FI No. 17.1, without including the text of FI No. 17.1. Following that, B.E. essentially includes a points and authorities as to why further responses should be ordered for all the discovery in dispute.
The lack of a code-compliant separate statement subverts the purpose of the requirement for the separate statement. B.E.’s argument that it is Doe 1’s fault if the separate statement is confusing (reply, p. 3, ll. 1-2), is simply not true. The separate statement is confusing because B.E. did not separately address each of the responses to the RFA’s separately.
The hearing on the matter will be continued to allow B.E. to file a code-compliant separate statement and allow Doe 1 to respond to a code-compliant statement.
Pending the continued hearing, the parties will be ordered to engage in a further, and meaningful, meet and confer regarding the responses. In so doing, the parties are provided with the following guidance:
“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.)
“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. 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 document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)
“A trial court must be mindful of the Legislature’s preference for discovery over trial by surprise, [and] must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery. . .” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)
Code of Civil Procedure, section 2033.010 provides, in pertinent part: “Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.”
“The party to whom requests for admission have been directed shall respond in writing under oath separately to each request. Each response shall answer the substance of the requested admission or set forth an objection to the particular request.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.210, subds. (a-b).
Although admissions should not be substantively compound, the responding party has an affirmative duty to “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (b)(1).)
RFAs “differ fundamentally from other forms of discovery. Rather than seeking to uncover information, they seek to eliminate the need for proof.” (Murillo v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 730, 735.)
Misuses of the discovery process include: “Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery” and “Making an evasive response to discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (e)(f).)
Should the parties not be able to resolve the discovery issues, or at least meaningfully limit them, the court will be inclined to issue monetary sanctions against one or both parties at the continued hearing.