Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 22STCV02658, Date: 2023-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02658    Hearing Date: September 13, 2023    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Viet Do, as trustee of the Tranquility Trusted dated January 16, 2017 vs. Lookout Mountain Development, et. al., Case No. 22STCV02658

Tentative Ruling re:  Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories; Request for Sanctions

Defendants Lookout Mountain Development and Walter Zeppieri (collectively, Defendants) move to compel Plaintiff Viet Do, as Trustee of the Tranquility Trust dated January  16, 2017 (Plaintiff) to produce further responses to the Form Interrogatories (Set One), Nos. 12.2 through 12.7. The motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve supplemental responses within ten (10) days of today’s date.  The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,560.  Sanctions are payable to Defendants’ counsel within thirty (30) days of today’s date.

A motion to compel further responses to form or specially prepared interrogatories may be brought if the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)  

A responding party’s answer to interrogatories must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits,” and “[i]f an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” It is improper for an answer to only respond to a portion of the information sought, particularly when an interrogatory is specific and explicit. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783; Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220.)

“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.)

Defendants served the Form Interrogatories (Set One) on Plaintiff on July 29, 2022. (Scott Decl. ¶ 2, Ex, 1.) Plaintiff served responses on September 23, 2022. (Scott Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 2.) Interrogatory Nos. 12.2 through 12.7 ask whether Plaintiff or anyone on Plaintiff’s behalf has interviewed any witness or obtained any witness statement concerning the subject incident (an alleged water leak at the real property purchased by Plaintiff), ask Plaintiff to disclose information regarding any interviews or witness statements, and ask whether Plaintiff knows of any reports, photographs, films, or diagrams/reproductions concerning the incident.

Plaintiff’s responses to each of Nos. 12.2 through 12.7 state, “Objection, vague and ambiguous in the context of this litigation. Without waiver of these objections, it is presumed that AIG has interviewed people and reports have been provided from Harris & Sloan.” (Scott Decl., Ex. 2 [29].)

Plaintiff’s objections are meritless, and the responses are incomplete. Accordingly, the unopposed motion is granted.

“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).) Misuses of the discovery process include “[m]aking an evasive response to discovery” and “mak[ing], without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

            The Court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted based on Plaintiff’s evasive responses and meritless objections necessitating this motion. Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $2,060, based on an hourly rate of $250, for 6 hours to prepare the motion and 2 hours anticipated to review the opposition and prepare a reply, plus a $60 filing fee. (Scott Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.) Because the motion is unopposed, the Court subtracts two of the requested hours and awards monetary sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $1,560.