Sofia Podgorski vs Silvia Lopez et al

Case Number

23CV05005

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 02/06/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

6 Motions to Compel

Tentative Ruling

(1)       The court grants plaintiff Guadalupe Gonzalez’s motion to compel further responses to requests for admission Nos. 10-12, 15 to defendant MyCasinoShuttle, LLC. Defendant shall serve supplemental responses to these requests on or before March 9, 2026.

(2)       The court grants plaintiff Guadalupe Gonzalez’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatory No. 17.1 as to request for admission Nos. 10-12, 15-16 to defendant MyCasinoShuttle, LLC. Defendant shall serve supplemental responses to this interrogatory on or before March 9, 2026.

(3)       The court grants plaintiff Guadalupe Gonzalez’s motion to compel further responses to requests for admission Nos. 10-12, 15 to defendant HP Transportation, LLC. Defendant shall serve supplemental responses to these requests on or before March 9, 2026.

(4)       The court grants plaintiff Guadalupe Gonzalez’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatory No. 17.1 as to request for admission Nos. 10-12, 15-16 to defendant HP Transportation, LLC. Defendant shall serve supplemental responses to this interrogatory on or before March 9, 2026.

(5)       The court grants plaintiff Guadalupe Gonzalez’s motion to compel further responses to requests for admission Nos. 12-14, 18-19 to defendant Silvia Lopez. Defendant shall serve supplemental responses to these requests on or before March 9, 2026.

(6)       The court grants plaintiff Guadalupe Gonzalez’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatory 17.1 as to request for admission Nos. 12-15, 18-19 to defendant Silvia Lopez. Defendant shall serve supplemental responses to this interrogatory on or before March 9, 2026.

(7)       Collectively as to all motions, the court awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,400, jointly payable by defendants MyCasinoShuttle, LLC, HP Transportation, LLC, and Silvia Lopez, and their counsel, to counsel for plaintiff Guadalupe Gonzalez on or before March 9, 2026.

Background:

This case involves two consolidated actions pertaining to a vehicle accident in Carpinteria on February 14, 2023. As alleged in the pleadings and noted in the moving papers, the plaintiffs in these consolidated actions were passengers on a bus. The bus collided with another vehicle causing injuries to the plaintiffs. Defendants are alleged owners or operators of the bus.

On November 9, 2023, plaintiff Sofia Podgorski filed her complaint (Podgorski Action) against defendants MyCasinoShuttle, LLC (MyCasino), Silvia Lopez (Lopez) and HP Transportation, LLC (HP Transport) (collectively, Defendants).

On May 8, 2024, Sofia Podgorski and Blanca Jenkins filed their operative first amended complaint (FAC) against Defendants. The FAC alleges two causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence. (FAC, ¶ 10.) As alleged in the FAC, Defendants negligently drove, managed, maintained, controlled, operated, and entrusted their motor vehicle causing Podgorski and Jenkins injury. (FAC, pp. 4-5.)

On May 14, 2024, Defendants filed an answer to the FAC generally denying the allegations therein and asserting 16 affirmative defenses.

On February 11, 2025, plaintiff Guadalupe Gonzalez filed a complaint against Defendants (Gonzalez Action). The complaint alleges two causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence. (Compl., ¶ 10.) As alleged in the complaint, Defendants negligently owned, maintained, entrusted, or operated a motor vehicle in a distracted manner causing Gonzalez injury. (Compl., pp. 4-5.)

On April 15, 2025, the court approved the parties’ stipulation and ordered that the Gonzalez Action be consolidated with the Podgorski Action for all purposes.

On June 23, 2025, Gonzalez served form interrogatories set one (Form Rogs) and requests for admission set one (RFAs) on Defendants.

On July 7, 2025, Defendants filed an answer to the Gonzalez complaint generally denying the allegations therein and asserting seventeen affirmative defenses.

On September 22, 2025, Gonzalez filed six motions to compel, including (1) motion to compel further responses from MyCasino to RFAs, (2) motion to compel further responses from MyCasino to Form Rogs, (3) motion to compel further responses from HP Transport to RFAs, (4) motion to compel further responses from HP Transport to Form Rogs, (5) motion to compel further responses from Lopez to RFAs, and (6) motion to compel further responses from Lopez to Form Rogs. The court’s docket does not reflect opposition or objections filed by Defendants to any of these motions.

Analysis:

“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 (Williams).) “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 party may move for an order compelling further responses to interrogatories or requests for admission if an answer is evasive or incomplete or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subds. (a)(1)-(3), 2033.290, subds. (a)(1)-(2).)

(1)       RFAs

As to the RFAs served on MyCasino and HP Transport, RFA No. 10 requests MyCasino and HP Transport admit that Lopez’s negligence caused the incident. (See Sept. Stat. ISO Motion, Nos. 10-12, 15-16.) RFA No. 11 requests MyCasino and HP Transport admit that Lopez’s negligence was the sole cause of the incident. (See ibid.) RFA No. 12 requests MyCasino and HP Transport admit that Lopez’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the incident. (See ibid.) RFA No. 15 requests MyCasino and HP Transport admit that Gonzalez was not comparatively negligent as it relates to the incident. (See ibid.) RFA No. 16 requests MyCasino and HP Transport admit that Gonzalez has zero percent liability for causing the incident. (See ibid.)

As to Lopez, RFA No. 12 requests that Lopez admit her negligence in operating the vehicle caused the incident. (See Sept. Stat. ISO Motion, Nos. 12-15, 18-19.) RFA No. 13 requests that Lopez admit her negligence caused the incident. (See ibid.) RFA No. 14 requests that Lopez admit her negligence was the sole cause of the incident. (See ibid.) RFA No. 15 requests that Lopez admit her actions were a substantial factor in causing the incident. (See ibid.) RFA No. 18 requests that Lopez admit Gonzalez was not comparatively negligent as it relates to the incident. (See ibid.) RFA No. 19 requests that Lopez admit Gonzalez has zero percent liability for causing the incident. (See ibid.)

These RFAs relate to causation or breach of duty, which are elements of Gonzalez’s cause of action for negligence. (See Peredia v. HR Mobile Services, Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 680, 687.) These RFAs seek discoverable information pertaining to claims at issue in this action. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Apart from RFA No. 16 to MyCasino and HP Transport, Defendants failed to serve responses to these RFAs other than objections. (Booker Decl. ISO MTC Re RFAs to Lopez, Ex. 3; Booker Decl. ISO MTC Re RFAs to MyCasino, Ex. 3; Booker Decl. ISO MTC Re RFAs to HP Transport, Ex. 3.) This was improper.  

Each response to an RFA must: “(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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (b)(1)-(3).) “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.” (Id., § 2033.220, subd. (c).) Gonzalez established that Defendants did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.

As to Defendants’ objections asserting the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, “[t]he party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship.” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733.) “An attorney seeking to invoke work product protection has the burden to show that materials are either absolute or qualified work product.” (Southern California Edison Co. v. Superior Court (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 573, 585.) Defendants did not submit any supporting facts in opposition.

“(a) If only a part of a request for admission is objectionable, the remainder of the request shall be answered.

“(b) If an objection is made to a request or to a part of a request, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the matter as to which an admission is requested is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.230.)

As to Defendants’ “legal conclusion” objections, “[r]equests for admission are not restricted to facts or documents, but apply to conclusions, opinions, and even legal questions.” (City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, LLC (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 344, 353.) These objections do not prevent substantive responses.

As to Defendants’ objections asserting a premature disclosure of expert opinion, this alleged circumstance does not prevent Defendants from providing a substantive response under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.

Defendants have not supported their objections with facts and it is not apparent on the face of these objections that they would preclude substantive responses. The court will overrule Defendants’ objections with the exception of privilege. If information is withheld on the basis of privilege, the objection should be sufficiently specific for the propounding party to evaluate the issues presented by the objection, meet and confer over these issues, and file an appropriate motion if warranted. The court will order Defendants to serve a privilege log as to information withheld on the basis of privilege.

For all these reasons, the court will grant these motions as to RFA Nos. 10-12, 15 to MyCasino and HP Transport, and RFA Nos. 12-14, 18-19 to Lopez.

(2)       Form Rogs

Although Defendants served responses as to some subparts of Form Rog 17.1, they did not serve responses or objections as to the subparts pertaining to RFAs at issue in these motions. (Booker Decl. ISO MTC Re Form Rogs to Lopez, Ex. 3; Booker Decl. ISO MTC Re Form Rogs to MyCasino, Ex. 3; Booker Decl. ISO MTC Re Form Rogs to HP Transport, Ex. 3.) This was improper.

“(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

“(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.

“(c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.)

The court will grant these motions to compel further responses to Form Rog 17.1 as to RFA Nos. 10-12, 15-16 to MyCasino and HP Transport, and Form Rog 17.1 as to RFA Nos. 12-15, 18-19 to Lopez.

(3)       Monetary Sanctions

Misuses of the discovery process include failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery and making an evasive response to discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (f).) Defendants’ failure to serve substantive responses to the RFAs (other than RFA 16 to MyCasino and HP Transport) and Form Rogs at issue in these motions after meet and confer communications was a misuse of the discovery process. (See id.) The court will award monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,400.