Judge Barbara M. Scheper, Case 20STCV44683 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 20STCV44683, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44683 Hearing Date: May 17, 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 Form Interrogatories (Set One). The motion is granted as to Form Interrogatory Nos. 9.1 and 50.1, and is denied as to the remaining interrogatories as moot. Verified supplemental responses to Form Interrogatories 9.1 and 50.1 must be served within ten (10) days of today’s date. The Court orders monetary sanctions against Alanic in the amount of $3,600.

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 Form 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.)

Baraness filed this motion on September 15, 2022, seeking to compel Alanic’s further responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 8.7, 8.8, 9.1, 9.2, 14.1, and 50.1. Alanic served supplemental responses to the Form Interrogatories at issue on May 3 and May 4, 2023, and now argues that the motion is moot. (Wilson Decl. ¶ 3, Exs. 1-2.) However, Plaintiff contends that Alanic’s supplemental responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 9.2 and 50.1 remain evasive and non-responsive.

Form Interrogatory No. 9.2 reads, “Do any DOCUMENTS support the existence or amount of any item of damages claimed in interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe each document and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.” In Alanic’s Third Supplemental Responses, Alanic responded, “Yes [¶] Storage fees: Approximately $8,000 per month @ 15 months =$120,000; In the process of obtaining the Documents from Fulfillment Express, Inc., 1502 Gage Road, Montebello, California…” The Court agrees with Baraness that answer is non-responsive. Alanic has provided no explanation for its failure to obtain the relevant documents, despite nearly two years having passed since the discovery was propounded.

Form Interrogatory No. 50.1 asks, for each agreement alleged in the pleadings, for Alanic to identify each document that is part of the agreement and all written modifications to the agreement, and identify the person possessing those documents; and to state all non-written portions of the agreement and all non-written modifications of the agreement, identify the persons who agreed to those provisions or modifications, and identify the documents evidencing the non-written provisions or modifications.

In its Third Supplemental Responses, Alanic identified four invoices as both the written agreements and the written modifications. Baraness argues that this response is insufficient because it shows only invoices, not contracts, and because the invoices are all marked “PAID.” Baraness also argues that Alanic has failed to produce evidence of contractual modifications attested to by its PMQ, which purportedly cancelled part of the orders. (Esfandi Reply Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. C, p. 138 [38].) The Court agrees that Alanic’s response is deficient with respect to those claimed modifications. Accordingly, the motion is granted as to Form Interrogatory Nos. 9.2 and 50.1, and is denied as moot as to the remaining interrogatories.

Misuses of the discovery process include “[m]aking an evasive response to discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) The Court finds that monetary sanctions against Alanic are warranted based on its evasive responses that necessitated the current motion. 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 Court finds Plaintiff’s request somewhat excessive. The Court sees no reason why three hours of preparation are necessary to attend the hearing. The Court orders Defendant Alanic to pay sanctions in the amount of $3,600 to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of today’s date.