Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 21STCV22686, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV22686    Hearing Date: February 22, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:  Feldman Berman Schwartz, LLP’s Motion To Compel Further Responses To First Set Of Form Interrogatories; Request For Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff In The Amount Of $2,160.00 Pursuant To CCP § 2023.030.

The unopposed motion is granted.

On or before 3/21/24, Plaintiff AHANG ZARIN shall serve further responses, without objections, and in full compliance with the California Discovery Act, CCP §2016.010 et seq., as to form interrogatory number 17.1 served by moving party.

Additionally,  on or before that same date, Plaintiff AHANG ZARIN shall pay discovery sanctions in the sum of $2,160.00 to Defendant FELDMAN BERMAN SCHWARTZ, LLP.  E.g., CCP   § 2023.030.

Plaintiff AHANG ZARIN filed suit against Defendants FELDMAN BERMAN SCHWARTZ, LLP, Gary N. Schwartz, and Deborah Feldman (“Defendants”) for alleged legal malpractice.  Defendant FELDMAN BERMAN SCHWARTZ, LLP filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff, alleging that, in a 2019 Retainer Agreement, Cross-Complainant agreed to represent Plaintiff in various, specified legal matters, but she has not paid for the legal services she received.

On 1/4/24, the Court ordered that Plaintiff’s former counsel of record was allowed to withdraw. Former counsel filed a proof of service on 1/8/24 showing service of the Court’s order, which listed this hearing as the next scheduled hearing in the case, on Plaintiff.

Defendant FELDMAN BERMAN SCHWARTZ, LLP brings a motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to form interrogatories and to impose $2,160.00 in sanctions against Plaintiff. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 are evasive because Plaintiff completely failed to respond or to provide support for her denials of the Requests for Admission that correspond to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 (RFA Nos. 8, 9, 16-18, 22-24, 27-29, 31, 32, 35, 39, 41-52).

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.300(a), a party may file a motion to compel further responses to interrogatory responses that are evasive, incomplete, or inadequate as to specification of documents. Best Products, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 1181, 1190.

Generally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification or other injustice. Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557-58. “‘[S]ubstantial justification” has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact.” Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.  “If the party seeking a monetary sanction meets its burden of proof, the burden shifts to the opposing party attempting to avoid a monetary sanction to show that it acted with ‘substantial justification.’ ”  Ibid., 200 Cal.App.4th at page 1435.

Plaintiff did not respond to Form Interrogatory 17.1 as it pertains to the RFA that she denied, specifically RFA Nos. 8, 9, 16-18, 22-24, 27-29, 31, 32, 35, 39, 41-52. Plaintiff’s non-response clearly qualifies as evasive and incomplete because she provided no information.  Additionally, no opposition has been filed in order to show substantial justification in avoidance of monetary sanctions.  Therefore, the motion is granted.