Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 23STCV21726, Date: 2024-10-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV21726 Hearing Date: October 16, 2024 Dept: 30
Dept.
30
Calendar
No.
Macri vs. Guseinov, et.
al., Case No. 23STCV21726
Tentative Ruling
re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
Lucrezia Macri (Plaintiff) moves
for an order compelling International Equity Partners, LLC (Defendant) to
answer Plaintiff’s special interrogatories, set one, propounded on October 26,
2023. (Astanehe Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant produced allegedly deficient responses on
February 23, 2024. (Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions
for attorney fees and costs incurred relating to this motion, pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure Section 2030.290. The motion is granted in part. The Court
does not award sanctions.
A party may move for an order
compelling a further response to an interrogatory if: (1) an answer to a
particular interrogatory is deemed evasive or incomplete; (2) documents
produced pursuant to section 2030.230 are unwarranted or not sufficiently
specified; or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is meritless or overly
general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) Such a motion must be
accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under section 2016.040. (Id.,
§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) Any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully
makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses is subject to monetary
sanctions, unless they acted with substantial justification. (Id., §
2030.300, subd. (d).)
Defendant provided objections and substantive responses to interrogatories
17–20, 28, 34, 36, 56, and 63. Plaintiff must show these objections are
meritless and that Defendant’s answer is evasive or incomplete. (Id., §
2030.300, subd. (a)(1), (3).) Defendant provided objections and documents as
allowed under section 2030.230 to interrogatories 8, 9, 12, 14, 37, and 52.
Plaintiff must show these objections are meritless and that the documents
provided were insufficiently specified to permit Plaintiff to locate the
answer. (Id., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a)(3), 2030.230.) Defendant provided
only objections to interrogatories 6, 7, 10, 48, 49, and 66. Plaintiff need
only show that these objections are meritless or overly general to compel
further responses. (Id. § 2030.300, subd. (a)(3).)
Interrogatories 17–20, 28, 34, 36, 56, and 63
Plaintiff deems Defendant’s responses to interrogatories 17–20, 28, 34, 36, 56, and 63 insufficient.
Defendant provided substantive responses and objections. Thus, Plaintiff must
both demonstrate that the answer is evasive or incomplete and that the objections
are meritless. (Id., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1), (3).)
Interrogatories 17–20
pertain to the number of units, separate front door, separate address, and
separate water service at the dwelling. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement pp.
19–25.) Defendant explains that the dwelling is a single-family unit. Thus, it is
one unit, has a front door, has one address, and does not have a separate water
service. These responses are complete and not evasive.
Interrogatory 28
requires Defendant to identify all communications relating to Plaintiff’s
tenancy at the home from 2015 until present day. (Id. at pp. 25–28.) Plaintiff
began her tenancy in 2022. Defendant has produced text messages and
communications from 2022 onward with Plaintiff concerning her tenancy.
Plaintiff argues that the production of documents is insufficient, but the
interrogatory specifically requests communications. Thus, this response is
complete and not evasive.
Interrogatory 34
requires Defendant to identify all habitability defects in the home from 2010
until the start of Plaintiff’s tenancy. (Id. at pp. 28–30.) Defendant
does not identify any defects and instead produces government records
concerning the property. This response is incomplete and evasive. Defendant
objects that this interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, and harassing,
reasoning that defects in the property from 14 years ago are not relevant to
Plaintiff’s case. Defendant also points to the government records provided as
sufficient because they identify the information sought. However, not every
defect in the home need have been resolved in a manner that would produce a
government record. Defendant’s responsive documents are thus insufficient.
Nevertheless, Defendant’s objection to the interrogatory as overbroad is well
taken. Finding information relating to every possible issue with the property
in the last 14 years could be a daunting task. Plaintiff does not identify any
reason for requesting records concerning every defect since 2010 in her
Separate Statement. Thus, Defendant’s objection to the interrogatory as
overbroad and burdensome is sustained.
Similarly, interrogatory
36 requires Defendant to produce all documents related to habitability defects
in the home from 2015 until the present. (Id. at pp. 30–33.) This interrogatory
is overbroad for the same reasons. Once again, Plaintiff does not offer
justification.
Interrogatory 56 asks
Defendant to describe all actions taken to legalize the property. (Id.
at pp. 40–42.) Defendant responded that he was unaware of any requirement to
legalize any portion of the property. Interrogatory 56 only requires a response
if Defendant affirmatively responds to interrogatory 55. (Defendant’s Separate
Statement p. 51.) Defendant answered interrogatory 55 the same way. Thus, interrogatory
56 did not require any response from Defendant given that he did not affirm interrogatory
55. Thus, Defendant offered a complete and non-evasive response.
Interrogatory 63 asks
Defendant to state his reasons for placing a “for rent” sign in the front yard
during Plaintiff’s tenancy. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement pp. 42–43.)
Defendant answered that he did so because the property was for rent. This
answers the question. Defendant’s
response is complete and non-evasive.
Interrogatories 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 37, and 52
Plaintiff deems
Defendant’s responses to interrogatories 8, 9, 12, 14, 37, and 52 insufficient
as well. Defendant provided documents and objections. Plaintiff must show that
the documents are insufficient or not properly specified, and that any
objections are meritless. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a)(3),
2030.230.)
Interrogatory 8 asks
Defendant to identify all persons who performed repair work on the property
from 2015 until the present. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement pp. 5–7.) Similarly,
interrogatory 12 asks Defendant to identify all persons who inspected the
subject property during the same period. (Id. at pp. 12–14.) Defendant
provides “government records” without specifying which records contain the
required names. Thus, Defendant’s responses are incomplete, and the records
produced are insufficiently specified. Defendant’s objections that the
interrogatories are unduly burdensome is without merit. Property managers
regularly keep records of repair work and inspections. Producing those records,
or the relevant names, is not overly burdensome or unreasonable. Thus,
Defendant is compelled to provide further responses to these interrogatories.
Interrogatory 9 asks
Defendant to describe all habitability defects on the property from 2015 until
the present. (Id. at pp. 7–10.) This interrogatory is overbroad for the
same reasons as interrogatories 34 and 36.
Interrogatory 14 directs
Defendant to identify all certificates of occupancy relating to the property. (Id.
at pp. 14–16.) Plaintiff’s request is relevant, as it would help her identify when
the home had previously been occupied. Defendant claims that his proffered
government records contain the information sought by Plaintiff but does not
identify where in the records that information is located. Defendant is
compelled to identify which submitted records contain the information or
provide a further response to interrogatory 14.
Interrogatory 15 similarly directs Defendant
to identify certificates of occupancy relating to the unit. (Id. at pp.
16–19.) Since the property is a single unit, this interrogatory is duplicative,
and no further response is required.
Interrogatory 37 asks
Defendant to identify all complaints made to him by Plaintiff. (Id. at
pp. 33–35.) Defendant has provided all communications between himself and
Plaintiff. These would include all complaints made by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has
not indicated otherwise, rather objecting to the specificity of the unrelated government
records submitted by Defendant. Because the submitted communications are
between Plaintiff and Defendant, Plaintiff is just as capable of identifying
the relevant information as Defendant.
Interrogatory 52 asks Defendant to identify
all communications with Plaintiff regarding her security deposit. (Id.
at pp. 38–40.) Defendant’s provision of all communications between himself and
Plaintiff are sufficient for the same reasons. Thus, Defendant has submitted
documents sufficient to satisfy these interrogatories.
Interrogatories 6, 7, 10, 48, 49, and 66
Plaintiff deems Defendant’s responses to
interrogatories 6, 7, 10, 48, 49, and 66 insufficient. Defendant provided only
objections to these interrogatories. Thus, Plaintiff need only show that these
objections are meritless or overly general to compel further responses. (Id.
§ 2030.300, subd. (a)(3).)
Interrogatory 6 instructs Defendant to
identify all occupants of the home from 2015 to the present. (Plaintiff’s
Separate Statement pp. 2–3.) Interrogatory 7 asks Defendant to describe each
former occupant’s reason for vacating the home. (Id. at pp. 3–5.)
Interrogatory 10 instructs Defendant to identify all complaints from previous
tenants pertaining to water intrusion at the property. (Id. at pp.
10–11.) Interrogatory 48 requires a description of the occupancy history of the
property, while interrogatory 49 requires a description of how Defendant used
the upstairs unit. (Id. at pp. 35–38.) Interrogatory 66 asks Defendant
to identify the name of the occupants he told Plaintiff he would lease the home
to in November 2022. (Id. at pp. 43–44.)
Defendant objects to all these
interrogatories on the ground that they violate the California Constitution’s
right to privacy. “Even when discovery of private information is found directly
relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically
allowed; there must then be a careful balancing of the compelling public need
for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy.” (Davis v. Superior
Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014.) Where privacy rights are
implicated, the scope of discovery must be circumscribed and specific,
proceeding in the least intrusive manner possible. (Ibid.) Information
is deemed private when well-established social norms recognize the need for an
individual to have control over its dissemination to prevent embarrassment. (Pioneer
Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 370.)
Plaintiff’s interrogatories 6, 48, and 66 require the Defendant to
identify previous tenants. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement pp. 2–3, 35–37,
43–44.) There is no privacy protection for the identity, address, or contact
information of percipient witnesses. “[A] percipient witness’s willingness to
participate in civil discovery has never been considered relevant — witnesses
may be compelled to appear and testify whether they want to or not.” (Puerto
v. Superior Court (Wild Oats Markets, Inc.) (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242,
1251–1252.) Plaintiff likely seeks the identities of previous tenants to garner
testimony about previous issues with the property. Those individuals’ privacy
rights are not implicated by the requested disclosure of their identities as
potential percipient witnesses. Thus, Defendant is compelled to answer
interrogatories 6, 48, and 66.
Plaintiff’s interrogatories 7 and 10 require the Defendant to disclose
previous tenants’ reasons for leaving (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement pp. 3–5) and
complaints regarding water intrusion (id. at pp. 10–11). A person’s
reasons for leaving a property or their complaints about that property are not
generally recognized as private information. Defendant points to no
well-established social norms recognizing a need for discretion regarding this
information. Because no privacy interest is implicated, Defendant is compelled
to respond to these interrogatories as well.
Interrogatory 49 follows the same analysis. Plaintiff asks Defendant to
describe how he used the upstairs portion of the property from 2015 to the
present. (Id. at pp. 37–38.) There is no well-established social norm
regarding this information. Additionally, Defendant’s objection that the
interrogatory is too vague is unfounded. Thus, Defendant is compelled to
respond.
Accordingly, Defendant is ordered to respond to interrogatories 6, 7, 8,
10, 12, 48, 49, and 66. Defendant is additionally compelled to identify with
specificity the submitted documents addressing interrogatory 14.
Monetary Sanctions
“[T]he
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 response to a demand for inspection, copying,
testing, or sampling, 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. If a party then fails to obey the order
compelling a response, the court may make those orders that are just, including
the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating
sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in
addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under
Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300,
subd. (c).)
Here, both
Plaintiff’s motion to compel and Defendant’s opposition were warranted. Thus,
the Court does not award sanctions.