| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Five; Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Five
reconsideration must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time.?(Dickson v. Mann (2024) 103 Cal. App. 5th 935, review denied (Oct. 23, 2024). The Court is confident that Plaintiff's Counsel is no doubt aware of these statements of the law and therefore does not appreciate Plaintiff's Counsel's contribution to judicial inefficiency by rehashing arguments already made in opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in this motion. The court therefore declines to revisit in this motion any claims of judicial error and or misinterpretation or misapplication of the law.
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the deposition testimony of Ms. Ygbuhay or Mr. Wenko constitutes "new or different facts" within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure §1008. The substance of such testimony is cumulative of evidence already before the Court regarding the RMCC database and Defendant's consideration of safety measures. Nor have Plaintiffs shown reasonable diligence in obtaining or presenting such evidence earlier. Plaintiffs' arguments regarding alleged discovery misconduct and evidentiary authentication similarly fail to satisfy the requirements of §1008, and do not warrant reconsideration.
However, the Court finds that Defendant's amended responses to Requests for Admission concerning the timing of fencing installation--indicating that such fencing was installed between August and November 2018--constitute a new fact not previously before the Court in verified form. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that this information was not available to them at the time of the summary judgment proceedings. A verified admission of a fact is not equivalent to circumstantial evidence that may support a conclusion as to the existence of said fact. (Civ.
Proc. Code § 2033.410). Plaintiffs were therefore not in possession of said fact when Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment MSJ was heard. (Film Packages, Inc. v. Brandywine Film Productions, Ltd. (1987), 193 Cal.App.3d 824) Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED solely as to this newly presented fact. The Court will reconsider its prior ruling only to the limited extent necessary to evaluate the impact of this fact. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. Because the Court grants reconsideration solely as to Defendant's amended response to Requests for Admission regarding the timing of fencing installation, and its impact, if any, on any applicable duties of Defendant.
The Court will conduct further proceedings limited to the impact of that fact on the prior summary judgment ruling. The Court sets the matter for further hearing on June 17, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24. The parties are ordered to submit simultaneous supplemental briefs addressing only the effect of this newly presented fact on the Court's prior ruling. Supplemental briefs shall be filed and served no later than June 1, 2026. Briefs shall not exceed 15 pages. No reply briefs shall be permitted absent further order of the Court.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The Court will not consider argument or evidence beyond the limited scope identified herein without prior leave. CV-23-006729 - LUSBY, KARI vs YOUNG, CARTER - Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Five, to Kari Lusby - GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part, without prejudice; b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Five, to Kari Lusby - GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part, without prejudice. a) GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part, without prejudice. "..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." (Civ.
Proc. Code § 2017.010). The Court finds that Plaintiff's responses to the Special Interrogatories at issue are non-responsive, incomplete and or evasive. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.220. and 2030.300). The Court finds, to the extent that Plaintiffs have put their family assets and income at issue based on their claims of financial hardship, the discovery sought by Defendant herein is relevant to this action.
As to Plaintiff's assertions of financial privilege, the right to financial privacy is not absolute. Further, to the extent that Plaintiff has put the family income at issue, Plaintiff is deemed to have waived any such privilege to the extent necessary for fair resolution of the action (GT, Inc. v. Superior Court, (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 748). The Court notes that Defendant does not seek tax returns or the information therein contained. Therefore, Plaintiff's reliance on Sav-On, and Webb are unavailing. (Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v.
Superior Ct., (1975)15 Cal. 3d 1; Webb v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., (1957) 49 Cal. 2d 509). Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ordered to produce further verified, complete, code-compliant responses to said Special Interrogatories Numbers 300-304 and 306-321within 14 days of the date of service of this order. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2030.220. and 2030.300).) The Court declines to impose evidentiary sanctions at this time. Defendant shall submit a Proposed Order that conforms to this ruling within five court days. b) GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part, without prejudice. "..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." (Civ.
Proc. Code § 2017.010). The Court finds that Plaintiff's responses to the Requests for Production at issue are non-responsive, incomplete and or non-compliant. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.230. and 2031.310). To the extent that Plaintiff executed incorporation documents for Lusby Mining, the court finds that Plaintiff has custody or control of responsive documents, such that the Court may compel the production of same. (Padron v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc., (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1246).
The Court finds, to the extent that Plaintiff has put the income generated from Lusby Mining LLC at issue in this action, that the documents requested by Defendants are relevant to this action. As to Plaintiff's assertions of financial privilege, the right to financial privacy is not absolute. Further, to the extent that Plaintiff has put the family income at issue, Plaintiff is deemed to have waived any such privilege to the extent necessary for fair resolution of the action (GT, Inc. v. Superior Court, (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 748).
The Court notes that Defendant does not seek tax returns or the information therein contained. Therefore, Plaintiff's reliance on Sav-On, and Webb are unavailing. (Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Ct., (1975)15 Cal. 3d 1; Webb v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., (1957) 49 Cal. 2d 509). Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ordered to produce further verified, code-compliant responses to said Requests for Production Numbers 128-132 within 14 days of the date of service of this order. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2031.010, 2031.310) The Court declines to impose evidentiary sanctions at this time.
Defendant shall submit a Proposed Order that conforms to this ruling within five court days. The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 19***