Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV20049, Date: 2024-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20049    Hearing Date: February 26, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On June 20, 2022, Plaintiff Sheila Coon (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant City of Culver City (“Defendant”) for negligence and dangerous condition of public property. On October 28, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.

On May 18, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with Form Interrogatories, Set One. (Vaysberg Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. 1.) Extensions were granted until August 3, 2023, when Defendant responded with only objections. (Id. ¶ 7, Exh. 3.) Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant requesting substantive responses and at the request of Defendant’s counsel, granted an extension until November 27, 2023. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has failed to provide further responses. Plaintiff scheduled an IDC for January 24, 2024.

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 1.1, 4.1 – 4.2, 12.1 – 12.7, 13.1 – 13.2, 14.1-14.2, 15.1, 16.1-16.5, 16.9-16.10, 17.1.[1] Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

MEET AND CONFER

At the January 24, 2024 IDC, the Court was informed that the issues were resolved. However, on February 22, 2024, Plaintiff advised the Court that no responses were served. The Court therefore continued all motions to compel further to this date.  

ANALYSIS

Compel Further Response to Interrogatories

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(a) provides that “on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that 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.¿ 

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”¿ 

The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(b)(1).) “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).)  

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further 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. § 2030.300(d).)   

Analysis

Here, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 1.1, 4.1 – 4.2, 12.1 – 12.7, 13.1 – 13.2, 14.1-14.2, 15.1, 16.1-16.5, 16.9-16.10, 17.1.

To each of these interrogatories, Defendant responded:

“Objection. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and uncertain; is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive because it is unlimited in time and scope; violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine pursuant to Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214, 217-218 and Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480.”

The court finds these objections are evasive and too general. Defendant has not opposed this motion or set forth any argument to show the objections have merit.  Therefore, the motion to compel further is granted.

Plaintiff seeks $4,110 in monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record. However, because Plaintiff did not request sanctions against Defendant’s counsel in the notice of motion, the Court will not award sanctions against Defendant’s counsel. Sanctions are based on a $450 hourly rate and the $60 filing fee. The Court finds sanctions are warranted, but the amount requested is excessive. Therefore, the Court grants sanctions in the amount of $1,410 (3 hours of attorney time plus the filing fee).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Sheila Coon’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 1.1, 4.1 – 4.2, 12.1 – 12.7, 13.1 – 13.2, 14.1-14.2, 15.1, 16.1-16.5, 16.9-16.10, 17.1. Defendant shall serve further responses within 10 days. 

The Court further GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the reduced amount of $1,410.00. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days of the date of this order. 

Plaintiff to provide notice and file a proof of service of such. 

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On June 20, 2022, Plaintiff Sheila Coon (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant City of Culver City (“Defendant”) for negligence and dangerous condition of public property. On October 28, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.

On May 18, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Vaysberg Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. 1.) Extensions were granted until August 3, 2023, when Defendant responded with only objections. (Id. ¶ 7, Exh. 3.) Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant requesting substantive responses and at the request of Defendant’s counsel, granted an extension until November 27, 2023. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has failed to provide further responses. (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff scheduled an IDC for January 24, 2024.

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 1–30. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

MEET AND CONFER

At the January 24, 2024 IDC, the Court was informed that the issues were resolved. However, on February 22, 2024, Plaintiff advised the Court that no responses were served. The Court therefore continued all motions to compel further to this date. 

ANALYSIS

Compel Further Response to Interrogatories

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(a) provides that “on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that 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.¿ 

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”¿ 

The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(b)(1).) “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).)  

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further 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. § 2030.300(d).)   

Analysis

Here, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 1–30.

To each of these interrogatories, Defendant responded:

“Objection. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and uncertain; is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive because it is unlimited in time and scope; violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine pursuant to Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214, 217-218 and Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480.”

The court finds these objections are evasive and too general. Defendant has not opposed this motion or set forth any argument to show the objections have merit.  Therefore, the motion to compel further is granted.

Plaintiff seeks $4,110 in monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record. However, because Plaintiff did not request sanctions against Defendant’s counsel in the notice of motion, the Court will not award sanctions against Defendant’s counsel. Sanctions are based on a $450 hourly rate and the $60 filing fee. The Court finds sanctions are warranted, but the amount requested is excessive. Therefore, the Court grants sanctions in the amount of $1,410 (3 hours of attorney time plus the filing fee).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Sheila Coon’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 1–30. Defendant shall serve further responses within 10 days. 

The Court further GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the reduced amount of $1,410.00. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days of the date of this order. 

Plaintiff to provide notice and file a proof of service of such. 

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On June 20, 2022, Plaintiff Sheila Coon (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant City of Culver City (“Defendant”) for negligence and dangerous condition of public property. On October 28, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.

On May 18, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. (Vaysberg Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. 1.) Extensions were granted until August 3, 2023, when Defendant responded with only objections. (Id. ¶ 7, Exh. 3.) Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant requesting substantive responses and at the request of Defendant’s counsel, granted an extension until November 27, 2023. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has failed to provide further responses. (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff scheduled an IDC for January 24, 2024.

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, numbers 1–43. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

MEET AND CONFER

At the January 24, 2024 IDC, the Court was informed that the issues were resolved. However, on February 22, 2024, Plaintiff advised the Court that no responses were served. The Court therefore continued all motions to compel further to this date. 

ANALYSIS

Compel Further Responses to Demand for Production 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(a) provides that on receipt of a response to a request for production of documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:¿¿ 

¿¿ 

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.¿¿ 

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.¿¿ 

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.¿¿¿ 

¿ ¿¿ 

“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).)¿¿¿¿ 

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to 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. § 2031.310 (h).)  

Analysis

Here, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, numbers 1–43.

To each of these, Defendant responded:

“Objection. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive because it is unlimited as to time and scope; is vague, ambiguous, and uncertain;” violates the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine pursuant to Nacht & Lewis Architects v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214; Coito v. Sup. Ct. (State of Calif.) (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 499, 502.”

The court finds these objections are evasive and too general. Defendant has not opposed this motion or set forth any argument to show the objections have merit.  Therefore, the motion to compel further is granted.

Plaintiff seeks $4,110 in monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record. However, because Plaintiff did not request sanctions against Defendant’s counsel in the notice of motion, the Court will not award sanctions against Defendant’s counsel. Sanctions are based on a $450 hourly rate and the $60 filing fee. The Court finds sanctions are warranted, but the amount requested is excessive. Therefore, the Court grants sanctions in the amount of $1,410 (3 hours of attorney time plus the filing fee).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Sheila Coon’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, numbers 1–43. Defendant shall serve further responses within 10 days. 

The Court further GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the reduced amount of $1,410.00. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days of the date of this order. 

Plaintiff to provide notice and file a proof of service of such. 

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On June 20, 2022, Plaintiff Sheila Coon (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant City of Culver City (“Defendant”) for negligence and dangerous condition of public property. On October 28, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.

On May 18, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Admissions, Set One. (Vaysberg Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. 1.) Extensions were granted until August 3, 2023, when Defendant responded with only objections. (Id. ¶ 7, Exh. 3.) Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant requesting substantive responses and at the request of Defendant’s counsel, granted an extension until November 27, 2023. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has failed to provide further responses. (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff scheduled an IDC for January 24, 2024.

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One, numbers 1–9. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

MEET AND CONFER

At the January 24, 2024 IDC, the Court was informed that the issues were resolved. However, on February 22, 2024, Plaintiff advised the Court that no responses were served. The Court therefore continued all motions to compel further to this date. 

ANALYSIS

Request for Admissions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290(a) provides that on receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply:¿ 

¿ 

(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete.¿ 

(2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.¿ 

If a party fails to serve a timely response, they waive any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a).)  

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, 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. § 2033.290(d).)  

Analysis

Here, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One, numbers 1–9.

To each of these, Defendant responded:

“Objection. This request is unintelligible, vague, ambiguous, and overbroad; is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f); calls for an admission to a speculative hypothetical; lacks foundation and assumes facts; calls for improper legal opinion and premature expert opinions; seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine pursuant to Nacht & Lewis Architects v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214; and seeks an admission that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

The court finds these objections are evasive and too general. Defendant has not opposed this motion or set forth any argument to show the objections have merit.  Therefore, the motion to compel further is granted.

Plaintiff seeks $4,110 in monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record. However, because Plaintiff did not request sanctions against Defendant’s counsel in the notice of motion, the Court will not award sanctions against Defendant’s counsel. Sanctions are based on a $450 hourly rate and the $60 filing fee. The Court finds sanctions are warranted, but the amount requested is excessive. Therefore, the Court grants sanctions in the amount of $1,410 (3 hours of attorney time plus the filing fee).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Sheila Coon’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One, numbers 1–9. Defendant shall serve further responses within 10 days. 

The Court further GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the reduced amount of $1,410.00. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days of the date of this order. 

Plaintiff to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.