Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 21STCV46978, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV46978 Hearing Date: November 15, 2023 Dept: 55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion of Defendant Aaron Markowitch
(“Defendant”) to Compel Further Responses to Defendant's First Set of Form
Interrogatories-General. Motion of Defendant
to Compel Further Responses to Defendant's First Set of Special Interrogatories.
Both motions are granted.
On or before 1/6/24, Plaintiff shall serve further
responses, without objections, and in full compliance with the California
Discovery Act, CCP §2016.010 et seq., as to the form interrogatories and
special interrogatories served by Defendant.
On or before that same date, Plaintiff ELCHANAN BEISS and
The Chang Firm shall pay discovery sanctions in the total sum of $4,600 to Defendant,
the Court finding the absence of substantial justification. E.g., CCP § 2023.030.
On 12/27/21, Plaintiff
ELCHANAN BEISS (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint. On 7/27/22, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint, alleging that Plaintiff was a tenant residing at an apartment
complex at 952 S Detroit Street, Los Angeles, until constructive eviction,
after defendants, as landlords, failed to timely or fully address Plaintiff’s
complaints of uninhabitable conditions.
Defendant filed two motions to compel Plaintiff to
serve further responses to form and special interrogatories, on grounds that
they are not in statutory compliance, because responses are not complete and
straightforward, including as to identifying persons having knowledge so that
Defendant can call witnesses for depositions and prepare for trial. Further, Defendant contends that many of the
responses refer to the entire document production of over 100 documents as a
same answer for each request. Defendant also seeks $2,300 in sanctions against
Plaintiff and counsel as to each motion. Plaintiff opposes the motions, based
on arguments including that the subject responses are sufficient, direct and
straightforward, and Defendant failed to meet and confer as to every issue
raised.
[Motions
Re Form and Special Interrogatories]
Meet and Confer
A
discovery motion should not be denied automatically based upon the reason that
the moving parties failed to meet and confer in good faith. Obregon v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67
Cal.App.4th 424, 434. But see
Townsend v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439 (motion must be
denied where lack of meet and confer). “‘A
determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate . . .
involves the exercise of discretion.’” Stewart
v. Colonial W. Agency (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 1006, 1016. Accord Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177
Cal.App.4th 1277, 1293-94.
Here,
the Court finds that meeting and conferring was adequate, where Plaintiff’s
opposing documents continue to assert that all of the many responses at issue are
in statutory compliance, which indicates that informal meeting and conferring
would not have resolved the issues before the motions were filed.
Hence,
in its discretion, the Court declines to deny the motions on the basis of
sufficiency of meeting and conferring.
Discovery Act Compliance
As stated more in detail above, Defendant contends
that the subject responses lack requested information, whereas Plaintiff
contends that all responses are sufficient.
If interrogatory responses lack specificity, then
parties may move to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure
Section 2030.300(a), providing for motions to compel, where parties deem that
an answer is evasive, incomplete, or inadequate as to specification of
documents. Best Products, Inc. v.
Sup. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 1181, 1190 (dictum).
If a responding party does not have personal knowledge
for a full response, the party shall so state and make a reasonable and good
faith effort to obtain the information by inquiries. Sinaiko Healthcare
Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th
390, 406; Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th
1496, 1504. Where interrogatory
responses reveal all information currently available to a party, but the
respondent cannot furnish all requested information, then the party should set
forth the efforts made to obtain that information. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App.
3d 771, 782, superseded by statute on
another ground as stated in Guzman v. General Motors Corp. (1984)
154 Cal.App.3d 438, 444.
“If an interrogatory asks the responding party to
identify a document, an adequate response must include a description of the
document.” Best Products, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th
1181, 1190. As previously produced
documents: “Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a
demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with
the specific request number to which the documents respond.” CCP § 2031.280(a).
Discovery is allowed even if it is duplicative of
other information sources. Tbg Ins.
Servs. Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 443, 448; Carter v. Sup. Ct. (1990) 218
Cal.App.3d 994, 997 (allowing demands for documents and depositions notices
requesting documents). “A party is
permitted to use multiple methods of obtaining discovery and the fact that
information was disclosed under one method is not, standing alone, a proper
basis for refusing to provide discovery under another method.” Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Sup. Ct.
(1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 733, 739. Accord
Bunnell v. Sup. Ct. (1967) 254 Cal. App. 2d 720, 723
(“plaintiff could not refuse to answer merely on the claim that the requested
information had been given in previous depositions….”)
Reading the separate statements readily reveals to the
Court that Plaintiff repeatedly and similarly left out some requested
information and explained reasons why that happened in the opposing documents. But the case law is clear that the responses themselves
must state good-faith efforts to get the information, and Plaintiff cannot rely
upon other sources to which requesting parties could go obtain the information
or generally reference multiple documents (see, e.g., opp. sep. stmnt. re special
interrogatories, 3:23-28 (“Other
residents at the apartment complex during relevant time– contact information
unknown–discovery is ongoing. Defendants AARON MARKOWITCH and AARON NAHARY are
in possession of the information.”) and 14:17-22 (“Plaintiff previously
produced responsive documents including text messages, emails, City of Los
Angeles notices, pictures and videos. See BS 1-187; 25 Videos and 108 Photos
placed in dropbox.”)). The responses at issue in the separate statements
clearly are not in compliance in multiple respects, and the motions therefore
are granted.
Sanctions
Generally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to
parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification
or other injustice. E.g., 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.’ ” Doe v. U.S.
Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1435.
Here, the Court finds a lack of substantial
justification, where the opposing documents attempt to justify missing
information without following or applying applicable law analyzed above.
Conclusion
Both motions are granted, as to all interrogatory
numbers at issue, for reasons set forth above.