Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV36583, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36583    Hearing Date: February 28, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:  DEFENDANT LEO IMANI, INC’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES FROM PLAINTIFF AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,360.00. DEFENDANT NEDA MENSWEAR, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES FROM PLAINTIFF AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,360.00.

In this case, SUITS AMERICA, INC. (“Plaintiff”) claims that NEDA MENSWEAR, INC., PEYMAN ELYASI and LEO MANI, INC. (“Defendants”) failed to pay Plaintiff for the products Plaintiff allegedly provided to Defendants.

Defendants filed motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories that each of them served upon Plaintiff. After filing the motions, the parties held an IDC with the Court. As reflected in Plaintiff’s opposition and Defendants’ reply, Plaintiff subsequently served further verified responses to the form interrogatories.

Defendants’ reply does not contest the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s further supplemental responses. The Court’s review of the supplemental responses confirms that Plaintiff provided further supplemental information to the form interrogatories at issue in the motion. The Court therefore exercises its discretion to order the motions off-calendar. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., v. Klugman (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.

Defendants’ reply maintains that they are entitled to sanctions. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions in its opposition. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.300(d), the Court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party that unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses unless it concludes that the one subject to the sanctions “acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust.” Here, the Court finds Defendants were substantially justified in filing the motions due to Plaintiff’s incomplete and evasive responses to the form interrogatories. Moreover, many of Plaintiff’s objections lacked merit. The Court therefore finds no basis to impose sanctions against Defendants.

On the other side, Plaintiff is correct that Defendants’ separate statement does not comply with CRC 3.1345. More important, Plaintiff did supplement the responses after the parties’ informal discovery conference.  Plaintiff provided these further responses well-ahead of the motion hearing date and Defendants’ reply does not contest the sufficiency of these further responses. Under these circumstances, the Court ultimately concludes that it would be unjust to impose sanctions against Plaintiff.