Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 20STCV44683, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44683    Hearing Date: March 15, 2023    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Baraness investments LLC vs. Alanic International Corporation, et. al., Case No. 20STCV44683

Tentative Ruling re:  Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendants Baraness Investments, LLC, and Sean Baraness (collectively, Baraness) move to compel Defendant/Cross-Complainant Alanic International Corporation’s (Alanic) responses to the Special Interrogatories (Set One). The motion is granted. The Court orders monetary sanctions against Alanic in the amount of $5,400.

A party may move for an order compelling further response to a request for production of documents if the demanding party deems that responses are incomplete, evasive, or contain meritless objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (a).)  A motion to compel further responses to an inspection demand “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) 

“For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [Citation]. Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

Baraness served the Special Interrogatories (Set One) on Alanic on July 30, 2021. (Esfandi Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Alanic served initial responses on October 27, 2021, and served supplemental responses on April 4, 2022. (Esfandi Decl. ¶ 4-6, Ex. B, Ex. D.) The Special Interrogatories at issue are Nos. 21, 27, 29, 38, 40, 43, 46, 49, 52, 64, 79, 95, 97, 98, 100, 101, 104, 107, 116, 122, and 134. In response to these interrogatories, Alanic’s initial responses asserted various boilerplate objections. Alanic’s supplemental responses merely re-directed Baraness to documents produced in response to Baraness’s Requests for Production.

Alanic served further responses on March 2, 2023, after the filing of this motion. These responses state only that the relevant facts were given in the deposition testimony of Johnny and Tony Beig, without any further specification. Alanic failed to properly verify the further responses with the signature of Alanic’s officer. (Esfandi Reply Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1 [13].) The Court agrees with Baraness that these responses are evasive and improper.

Alanic’s Opposition to this motion was not timely filed. Furthermore, Baraness states that it was not served with the Opposition until March 6, 2023, contrary to the Opposition’s Proof of Service claiming service via email on March 2, 2023. (Esfandi Reply Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 2.) The Court declines to consider Alanic’s untimely Opposition, and grants the motion in full.

Misuses of the discovery process include “making an evasive response to discovery,” and “opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel . . . discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) The Court finds that monetary sanctions against Alanic are warranted based on its evasive responses and unsuccessful opposition. Baraness requests sanctions in the amount of $5,400, based on an hourly rate of $450, for 6 hours to prepare the motion, 3 hours to review the opposition and draft a reply, and 3 hours to prepare for and attend the hearing on the motion. (Esfandi Decl. ¶ 10.) The requested sanctions are granted.