Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV30656, Date: 2024-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30656    Hearing Date: November 7, 2024    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

            Defendants Ryan Sedghi Horton and Shoreh Sedghi’s 4 Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses

(1) Requests for Admission

Defendants Ryan Sedghi Horton and Shoreh Sedghi move to compel plaintiff Donna Morgan to serve further responses to requests for admission.  After defendants filed this motion, plaintiff served supplemental responses.  The motion is therefore moot as to compelling further responses.

Defendants further move for impose $1,780 in sanctions against plaintiff and her counsel of record.  “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though … the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)  Defendants show good cause for monetary sanctions.  “Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery” is a misuse of the discovery process subject to monetary sanctions.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (e).) 

Plaintiff made several meritless objections without substantial justification.  For example, request for admission No. 3 asked plaintiff to “Admit that YOU never entered into a written residential lease agreement with either of these DEFENDANTS for the SUBJECT PROPERTY at any time.”  Plaintiff initially responded by objecting that the request “seeks information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of this litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  This case is a residential landlord/tenant dispute.  Asking plaintiff to admit she had no written lease agreement with defendants is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Similarly, Nos. 35 and 36 asked plaintiff to admit she cashed a $2,075 check from Horton and to admit the authenticity of a copy.  Plaintiff again objected that the requests “seek[] information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of this litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  The requests are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.  Plaintiff’s third cause of action alleges defendants violated Civil Code section 1942.4, which provides, “A landlord of a dwelling may not demand rent, collect rent, issue a notice of a rent increase, or issue a three-day notice to pay rent or quit” if the landlord fails to correct a habitability violation after a notice of violation from a public agency that enforces housing law.  Asking plaintiff to admit defendant refunded some of her rent payments is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.

The court finds plaintiff did not act with substantial justification.  Sanctions are just under the circumstances.  Defendants reasonably incurred $1,780 in expenses bringing this motion.

(2) Requests for Production

            Defendants move to compel plaintiff to serve further responses to requests for production Nos. 1-59.  A party propounding requests for production may move to compel further responses if “[a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete,” “[a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive,” or “[a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)  Plaintiff served further responses after defendants filed this motion.  In their reply brief, defendants argue all supplemental responses are insufficient.

Incomplete Statements of Compliance

Plaintiff gave incomplete statements of compliance in response to Nos. 1-31, 34, 37, 38, 40-43, 47-52, and 58.  “A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)

Substantively, plaintiff responded to these requests: “Plaintiff will produce all responsive documents within her possession, custody or control to which she makes no objection.”  Though the response refers to objections, it is incomplete because it does not clearly state whether she will allow the production in whole or in part.  The response does not adequately identify whether plaintiff is withholding any documents based on objections.  When objecting to part of a request for production, the responding party must “[i]dentify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b)(1).)  Plaintiff’s responses do not identify which documents, if any, she is withholding.

Representations of Inability to Comply

Plaintiff made incomplete representations of inability to comply in response to Nos. 33, 35-36, 53-57, and 59.  “A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand.  This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.  The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

            Substantively, plaintiff’s responses to these requests state either “This is not applicable to Plaintiff as no such documents ever existed” or “Plaintiff is unable to comply as she has no documents as they have never existed to her knowledge, or [were] within her possession, custody, or control.”  Neither response includes the required statement that plaintiff made a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply.  As to documents that were never in her possession, plaintiff did not identify anyone believed to possess the documents. 

Meritless Objections

            Plaintiff made meritless objections in response to requests for production Nos. 32, 39, and 44-46.  On a motion to compel further responses, the responding party generally bears the burden of justifying its objections.  (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)  Plaintiff does not meet her burden.  Plaintiff makes no effort to justify most of her objections, including “attorney-client privilege,” “physician-patient privilege” or “governmental information privilege.”  Those objections plainly do not apply to, for example, documents regarding communications with the property’s prior owner (No. 32) or documents supporting claims for lost wages (No. 45).  Plaintiff does not justify any other objections.  As to her privacy objection, plaintiff does not meet her burden of showing “an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances” or “a threatened intrusion that is serious.”  (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)

            Plaintiff’s objections to requests for production Nos. 32, 39, and 44-46 are overruled. 

Sanctions

            Defendants move for $1,995 in sanctions against plaintiff and her counsel of record.  Plaintiff unsuccessfully opposed this motion.  She did not act with substantial justification.  Sanctions are just under the circumstances.  Defendants reasonably incurred the expenses they claim.

(3) Form Interrogatories

Defendants move to compel plaintiff to serve further responses to numerous form interrogatories, general.  A party propounding interrogatories may move to compel further responses when an answer “is evasive or incomplete,” “[a]n exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate,” or “[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)  Again, plaintiff supplemented her responses.  Defendants’ reply brief contends plaintiff must serve further responses to Nos. 2.5-2.7, 2.11, 8.2-8.8, 9.2, 10.1-10.2, 11.1-11.2, 14.2, 17.1, 50.1, and 50.5.

Plaintiff gave incomplete responses to several interrogatories.  For example, she did not answer the subparts to form interrogatory Nos. 14.2 and 50.1.

Plaintiff responded to several interrogatories by referring to documents in her possession.  She does not adequately show those interrogatories “would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from” documents.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.)  Moreover, her responses do not adequately “specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained.”  (Ibid.)  For example, to No. 12.4, plaintiff responded, “Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230, Plaintiff will provide any and all videos relating or pertaining to this request.”

Finally, plaintiff made meritless objections to numerous interrogatories.  For example, No. 2.5 asked her to state her residence addresses for the past five years.  Plaintiff made egregious boilerplate objections such as that the interrogatory “asks for a legal conclusion”, “seeks information which is attorney-client privileged,” and “could call for information or documents protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege or physician-patient privilege.”  Plaintiff does not adequately justify any of her objections. 

Plaintiff’s objections to form interrogatories Nos. 2.5-2.7, 2.11, 8.2-8.8, 9.2, 10.1-10.2, 11.1-11.2, 14.2, 17.1, 50.1, and 50.5 are overruled. 

Sanctions

            Defendants move for $2,210 in sanctions against plaintiff and her counsel of record.  Plaintiff unsuccessfully opposed this motion.  She did not act with substantial justification.  Sanctions are just under the circumstances.  Defendants reasonably incurred the expenses they claim.

(4) Special Interrogatories

            Defendants move to compel further responses to numerous special interrogatories.  After plaintiff served supplemental responses, defendants’ reply brief argues plaintiff must serve further responses to Nos. 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, 20-21, 23, 28-31, 34-37, 40, 42-43, 45-46, 48-49, 52-54, 56-57, 59-60, 62-64, 74-75, 78, and 81-82.

Like the form interrogatories, plaintiff made evasive responses, improper exercise of the option to produce documents, and meritless objections to these interrogatories.  For example, special interrogatory No. 31 asks plaintiff to “IDENTIFY each and every PERSON YOU had a written residential lease agreement with for the SUBJECT PROPERTY from January 1, 2019 to the present.”  Plaintiff’s supplemental response again included objections based on “attorney-client privilege”, “physician-patient privilege”, “the governmental information privilege” (twice), “collateral source doctrine, tax privilege, [and] governmental reporting privilege.”  Plaintiff does not justify her objections. 

Plaintiff’s objections to special interrogatories Nos. 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, 20-21, 23, 28-31, 34-37, 40, 42-43, 45-46, 48-49, 52-54, 56-57, 59-60, 62-64, 74-75, 78, and 81-82 are overruled. 

Sanctions

            Defendants move for $2,425 in sanctions against plaintiff and her counsel of record.  Plaintiff unsuccessfully opposed this motion.  She did not act with substantial justification.  Sanctions are just under the circumstances.  Defendants reasonably incurred the expenses they claim.

Disposition

            Defendants Ryan Sedghi Horton and Shoreh Sedghi’s motion to compel plaintiff Donna Morgan to serve further responses to requests for admission is moot as to further responses.  The motion is granted as to sanctions.  Plaintiff Donna Morgan and her counsel of record, Alfredo Nava, are ordered to pay defendants $1,780 in sanctions within 30 days.

            Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to requests for production is granted.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve further verified responses without objections to requests for production Nos. 32, 39, and 44-46.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve a privilege log and further verified responses to requests for production Nos. 1-31, 33-38, 40-43, and 47-59.  Plaintiff shall produce all responsive documents concurrently with her written responses.  Plaintiff Donna Morgan and her counsel of record, Alfredo Nava, are ordered to pay defendants $1,995 in sanctions within 30 days.

Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is granted.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve further verified responses without objections to form interrogatories – general Nos. 2.5-2.7, 2.11, 8.2-8.8, 9.2, 10.1-10.2, 11.1-11.2, 14.2, 17.1, 50.1, and 50.5, within 30 days.  Plaintiff Donna Morgan and her counsel of record, Alfredo Nava, are ordered to pay defendants $2,210 in sanctions within 30 days.

Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is granted.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve further verified responses without objections to special interrogatories Nos. 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, 20-21, 23, 28-31, 34-37, 40, 42-43, 45-46, 48- 49, 52-54, 56-57, 59-60, 62-64, 74-75, 78, and 81-82 within 30 days.  Plaintiff Donna Morgan and her counsel of record, Alfredo Nava, are ordered to pay defendants $2,425 in sanctions within 30 days.

Plaintiff Donna Morgan and her counsel of record, Alfredo Nava, are jointly and severally liable for all sanctions.