Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV14253, Date: 2024-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14253    Hearing Date: April 18, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, As Well As Compliance with Requests for Production.

BACKGROUND

YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN LOS ANGELES (“Plaintiff”) brings this case against 6600 SELMA AVE., LLC, JAYESH KUMAR, and MADHUBEN KUMAR (“Defendants”) for Defendants’ breach of a lease and guaranty after Defendants stopped paying rent. 

Plaintiff filed a combined motion to compel Defendants’ further responses to requests for admission, form interrogatories and special interrogatories, and document production, for various reasons addressed in nine separate statements. Three days before the hearing, Defendants filed a late opposition stating that they have provided further responses.

ANALYSIS

After filing the motions to compel, the parties held an IDC with the Court. At the IDC held on 3/27/24, counsel for Defendants agreed to serve further responses to the four sets of discovery.  Weisberg Decl., ¶ 2. Defendants served further responses and subsequently served further revised responses and a revised document production on 4/11/24 (one week before this hearing). Id., ¶¶ 9-10, Exs. 10-14. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ further revised responses and document production still fail to comply with Defendants’ discovery obligations. Plaintiff therefore contends that the Court should grant the motion and order Defendants to serve code-compliant, verified responses, as well as a complete document production.

Where respondents served untimely discovery responses after parties have filed motions to compel responses, courts have broad discretion as to ruling, including: 1) denying the motion as moot, in whole or part, where valid responses without objections have resolved the motion;  2) awarding requested sanctions; 3) allowing moving party to take the motion off calendar; 4)  considering the motion as voluntarily narrowed in scope; 5) compelling responses without objection, where no legally valid responses have been provided, as to some, or all, interrogatories; 6) treating the motion as one to compel further responses, and ruling accordingly, with, or without, a separate statement; 7) ordering the parties to meet and confer;  8)  ordering moving party to file a separate statement; or, 9) ordering the motion off calendar while requiring the propounding party to file a motion to compel further responses.  Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., v. Klugman (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.

Here, the Court exercises its discretion to grant the motion to compel further responses because it agrees with Plaintiff that Defendants’ revised further responses are inadequate. The purpose of the IDC process is to avoid costly and unnecessary discovery motion practice. Counsel for Defendants agreed to supplement Defendants’ deficient initial responses. The Court reiterated to defense counsel that such responses must be code-compliant and thorough. The Court is disappointed that defense counsel instead served further responses that continue to not directly answer the questions posed, consistent with Defendants’ obligations under the CCP. Defendants’ failure to comply with its obligations has only served to increase the costs of this litigation.

The Court grants the motions to compel. Defendants shall serve separate further, verified responses for each Defendant as to each set of discovery, i.e., Defendant Selma shall serve a verified further written response to the RFAs, interrogatories, and document requests propounded to Defendant Selma, and Defendants Jayesh Kumar and Madhuben Kumar shall each do the same as to the discovery requests propounded to them. The further, verified written responses and the document production are due by 5/1/2024.