Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 22CHCV01114, Date: 2023-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 22CHCV01114    Hearing Date: December 19, 2023    Dept: F51

Dept. F-51¿ 

Date: 12/19/23 

Case #22CHCV01114

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F-51

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

(Form Interrogatories, Set One)

Motion Filed: 5/31/23

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Stewart Silver (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Karah Sullivan (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to Moving Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, No. 12.2. Moving Defendant further requests that the Court order monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $3,472.35.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve further responses to Moving Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, No. 12.2, within 20 days. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $647.35.

BACKGROUND

On 5/12/23, Moving Defendant propounded its first set of discovery requests to Plaintiffs, including the subject Form Interrogatories, Set One. On 6/12/23, Plaintiff served her verified responses thereto. On 8/2/23, Plaintiff served her amended responses to Moving Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One.

On 8/23/23, Moving Defendant filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to his first set of Form Interrogatories. On 12/6/23, Plaintiff filed her opposition. On 12/8/23, Moving Defendant filed his reply.

ANALYSIS

“The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: (1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered; (2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings; or (3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.” (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).)

“Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.220.) “If an objection is made to an interrogatory or to a part of an interrogatory, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated.” (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.240, subd. (b).)

A propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses to interrogatories if any of the following apply: “(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Here, Moving Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 12.2, arguing that Plaintiff’s objections thereto render her response evasive and incomplete.

A.    Meet and Confer

A motion to compel further discovery responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration stating “facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2016.040.)

Here, Moving Defendant’s attorney declares that on 6/22/23 and 8/14/23, he corresponded with Plaintiff’s counsel to meet and confer about the issues raised in the instant motion, but the parties were unable to come to a resolution. (Decl. of Jeffrey B. Bohrer, ¶¶ 9–11.) Accordingly, the parties have satisfied the preliminary meet and confer requirement under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (b)(1).

Attorney-Client Privilege

Confidential communications between an attorney and a client are broadly protected from disclosure. (Evid. Code §§ 950–954.) However, “generally, the identity of an attorney's client is not considered within the protection of the attorney-client privilege. … [An] exception arises where known facts regarding an attorney's representation are such that the disclosure of the client's identity would betray personal, confidential information regarding the client.” (People ex rel. Herrera v. Stender (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 614, 648 [emphasis added].)

Here, Plaintiff objected to Moving Defendant’s Form Interrogatory 12.2 based on attorney-client privilege. Form Interrogatory 12.2 asks the following: “Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed; (b) the date of the interview; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who conducted the interview.” (Ex. 1 to Def.’s Mot., p. 5.)

Plaintiff’s initial 6/12/23 response to Form Interrogatory No. 12.2 state: “Objection, attorney-client privilege.” (Ex. 2 to Def.’s Mot., 6:10.) Plaintiff’s 8/2/23 amended responses state: “Objection, attorney-client privilege. The only persons interviewed have expressed an interest in engaging counsel to sue Cali Lake, so the discussion[s] are privileged.” (Ex. 4 to Def.’s Mot. 8:16–17.) Plaintiff goes on to identify eight witnesses in her amended response. (Id. at 8:18–9:6.)

Moving Defendant argues that the identity of any such witness is not protected by the attorney-client privilege because (1) the interrogatories are directed to Plaintiff, and not Plaintiff’s counsel; (2) Moving Defendant does not seek to discover the contents of any privileged communications; (3) Plaintiff’s counsel disingenuously asserted the privilege without having added any additional plaintiffs to the action; and (4) Plaintiff does not hold any privilege protecting her communications with witnesses to the incident. (Def.’s Mot. 5:7–19.) “The bad faith interposing of the attorney-client privilege is evasive, incomplete and is completely devoid of merit and set forth for the sole purpose of denying defendants their right to discovery.” (Id. at 6:2–4.)

Plaintiff argues in opposition that the privilege was invoked because “Counsel was in communication with a prospective witness to interview the witness. Rather than discuss the facts of the instant case, the prospective witness discussed that person’s issues Cali-Lake and whether there was a viable lawsuit. Attorney opinions were provided.” (Pl.’s Opp. 2:9–12.) Plaintiff argues that the client’s identity falls under the “confidential information” exception and is therefore protected because “a person who lived at the time at Cali-Lake was concerned about retaliation.” (Id. at 3:13–14; Herrera, 212 Cal.App.4th at 648.) Plaintiff likens the instant facts to those in Rosso, Johnson, Rosso & Ebersold v. Superior Court (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 1514, wherein the Court of Appeal found that the attorney-client privilege extended to the identities of persons who had responded to a newspaper advertisement placed by a law firm directed toward women who had suffered problems arising from use of intrauterine device, because revealing the identities those respondents would inevitably reveal the nature of a confidential medical problem. (Pl.’s Opp. 3:8–14, citing Rosso, 191 Cal.App.3d at 1519.)

The Court disagrees with Plaintiff, and finds that here, unlike in Rosso, the disclosure of the potential client’s identity as a witness to the subject incident does not pose a risk of revealing such confidential information as the witness’ medical history. Plaintiff has not presented the Court with any arguments that any other relevant confidential information about the witness is necessarily under threat of disclosure by way of fully answering Moving Defendant’s Form Interrogatory No. 12.2.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the attorney-client privilege does not extend to the identity of a potential client who is interviewed as a witness to the subject incident. Accordingly, the Court grants Moving Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to its Form Interrogatories, Set One.

B.     Sanctions

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Additionally, “the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Here, Moving Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the total amount of $3,472.35 to be imposed on Plaintiff and her counsel. This amount includes: (1) 2 hours of Moving Defendant’s attorney’s time spent working on this motion; (2) an additional 2 hours reading Plaintiff’s opposition and drafting a reply; and (3) an additional 2 hours appearing at the instant hearing, at his hourly billing rate of $565.00 per hour. (Decl. of Jeffrey B. Bohrer ¶¶ 13–14.)¿Moving Defendant further seeks to recover an additional $82.35 in filing fees. (Ibid.)

In granting the instant motion, the Court finds it reasonable to award Moving Defendant sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $647.35. 

CONCLUSION¿ 

The motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve further responses to Moving Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, No. 12.2, within 20 days. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $647.35.

Dept. F-51¿ 

Date: 12/19/23 

Case #22CHCV01114

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F-51

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

(Demand for Production, Set One)

Motion Filed: 5/31/23

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Oceans 11 RV Park, LLC, dba Cali Lake RV Resort, erroneously sued and served as Cali Lake RV Resort (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Karah Sullivan (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff to produce responsive documents to Moving Defendant’s Demand for Production, Set One. Moving Defendant further requests that the Court order monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $4,037.35.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to produce documents to Moving Defendant’s Demand for Production, Set One, in compliance with her verified responses thereto, within 20 days. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $643.35.

BACKGROUND

On 11/10/22, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Moving Defendant and two of its employees, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Statutory Violation re Moving RV; (2) Trespass to Chattel; (3) Conversion with Statutory Penalties; (4) Negligence; and (5) Unfair Business Practices. On 12/20/22, Moving Defendant filed its Answer.

On 5/12/23, Moving Defendant propounded its first set of discovery requests to Plaintiffs, including the subject Demand for Production, Set One. On 6/12/23, Plaintiff served her verified responses thereto.

On 8/22/23, Moving Defendant filed the instant motion to compel compliance with its demand for production. On 12/6/23, Plaintiff filed her opposition. On 12/8/23, Moving Defendant filed its reply.

ANALYSIS

Legal Standard

Plaintiff’s 6/12/23 verified responses to Moving Defendant’s Demand for Production, Set One, states that “Responding Party will produce all responsive documents in her custody, control, and possession” to each of Moving Defendant’s five requests for production. (Ex. 2 to Def.’s Mot., pp. 4–5.) However, Moving Defendant asserts that “as of the date of the filing of this instant Motion, no documents have been received.” (Def.’s Mot. 4:6.) In her opposition, Plaintiff concedes that “Defendant would be entitled to the requested order.” (Pl.’s Opp. 1:23.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Moving Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s compliance with its Demand for Production, Set One.

Sanctions¿ 

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.320, subd. (b).) Additionally, “the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Here, Moving Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the total amount of $4,037.35 to be imposed on Plaintiff and her counsel. This amount includes: (1) 3 hours of Moving Defendant’s attorney’s time spent working on this motion; (2) an additional 2 hours reading Plaintiff’s opposition and drafting a reply; and (3) an additional 2 hours appearing at the instant hearing, at his hourly billing rate of $565.00 per hour. (Decl. of Jeffrey B. Bohrer ¶¶ 13–14.)¿Moving Defendant further seeks to recover an additional $82.35 in filing fees. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff’s attorney declares in opposition that “the delay in providing the responsive documents is legitimate” because the RV in which Plaintiffs were residing caught on fire. (Decl. of Gary Kurtz ¶ 3.) “Given this situation, the delay has substantial justification, and sanctions should be denied.” (Ibid.) “I have no control over the delay in production and ask that sanctions be denied with respect to me.” (Id. at ¶ 4.) Moving Defendant’s counsel agrees to request sanctions be solely imposed against the client. (Bohrer Reply Decl. ¶ 8.)

In granting the instant motion, the Court finds it reasonable to award Moving Defendant sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $647.35. To the extent that Plaintiff has now produced documents responsive to Moving Defendant’s Demand for Production, Set One, rendering the instant motion moot, the request for sanctions is respectively moot.

¿ 

CONCLUSION¿ 

The motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to produce documents to Moving Defendant’s Demand for Production, Set One, in compliance with her verified responses thereto, within 20 days. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $647.35.