Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case Number: 22STCV20357, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV20357, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20357 Hearing Date: January 28, 2025 Dept: 14

Case Background

This is a legal malpractice case.

On April 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed their Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC”) for (1) Professional Negligence, (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and (3) Fraud and Deceit against Defendants Majid Safaie (“Safaie”), Arya Law Center PC (“Arya”) (collectively “Defendants”), and DOES 1-40.

On May 31, 2024, Defendants filed their motions to compel further discovery responses.

On January 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motions to compel further.

Instant Pleading

Defendants move to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, and Requests for Production.

Decision

Defendants’ motions to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to discovery are GRANTED. Defendants are awarded $1060 for two hours of attorney time at a rate of $500 per hour plus filing fees. All discovery responses and sanctions are to be served and paid within 30 days of this order.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, the Court may order a responding party to serve a further response to a request for production when the Court finds that any of the following apply:

1. A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete;

2. A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

3. An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

To prevail, the party moving for the order must first offer specific facts demonstrating “good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., section 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.) If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.300, the Court may order a responding party to serve a further response to interrogatories when the Court finds that any of the following apply: (1) the answer to a particular interrogatory is incomplete or evasive, (2) the exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is improper or inadequate, or (3) that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2030.300(b)(1).)

Unless notice of the motion to compel a further response is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., sections 2031.310(c), 2030.300(c).)

Sanctions are mandatory against “any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, requests for production, or requests for admission, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., sections 2031.310(h), 2030.300(d), 2033.290(d).)

Sanctions may be imposed for misuse of discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2023.030, subd. (a).) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2023.010, subd. (d).)

Discussion

Defendants move to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Form Interrogatories (FROGs) No. 9.2, Special Interrogatories (SROGs) Nos. 1, 3, and 5, and Requests for Production (RPDs) Nos. 1, 3, and 5. This motion concerns supplemental responses which were filed on March 18, 2024. (Stuart Decl., ¶11.) The parties participated in IDC on October 8, 2024.

FROG 9.2: Do any DOCUMENTS support the existence or amount of any item of damages claimed in 9.1? If no, described each document and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.

Plaintiff responded that the court files related to the underlying case are in Defendant’s possession. Defendants argue the response is insufficient because the documents themselves would not provide details regarding how Plaintiff came to believe she suffered $1 million in damages. The Court agrees that Plaintiff did not respond to this FROG because her court records in the underlying case would not support her demand for damages.

SROG 1: State all facts to support YOUR allegation that YOU suffered “severe emotional distress and mental suffering” as alleged in paragraphs 15, 22, and 30 of the COMPLAINT.

Plaintiff responded that she suffered pain, suffering, and humiliation since the date of the incident. Defendants argue that the response is inadequate because Plaintiff merely asserts allegations and there are no facts to support Plaintiff’s claims. The Court agrees that Plaintiff failed to provide facts to support her claims for emotional distress.

SROG 3: State all facts to support YOUR claim of damages RELATED TO DEFENDANTS’ alleged professional negligence.

Plaintiff responded with allegations that were copied directly from the Fourth Amended Complaint. Defendants argue the response was insufficient because it was merely a recitation of the Complaint unrelated to damages. The Court agrees that the response fails to provide facts to support Plaintiff’s claim for damages.

SROG 5: State all facts to support YOUR claim of damages RELATED TO DEFENDANTS’ alleged fraud.

Again, Plaintiff responded with text copied directly from the 4AC. The motion is granted with respect to this SROG for the same reasons as SROG 3.

RPD 1: Provide all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR allegation that YOU suffered “severe emotional distress and mental suffering” as alleged in paragraphs 15, 22, and 30 of the COMPLAINT.

Plaintiff responded that she could not locate any documents and reserved the right to supplement the request as discovery continued. It is now nearly one year since Plaintiff first served these responses in March 2024. It is reasonable that Defendants should seek further responses to this RPD.

RPD 3: Provide all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR claim of damages RELATED TO the DEFENDANTS’ alleged professional negligence.

Plaintiff responded that all documents are in Defendants’ custody. However, the court files in Plaintiff’s underlying case would not document Plaintiff’s entire claim for damages, including emotional distress. Thus, Plaintiff has not adequately responded to this RPD.

RPD 5: Provide all DOCUMENTS related to all communications between YOU and DEFENDANTS from April 11, 2019, to May 20, 2022.

Plaintiffs responded that all documents are in Defendant’s control and that she could not locate the documents. Defendants argue Plaintiff should be in possession of more communications because she claims to have communicated with Defendants routinely through email. The Court agrees. Plaintiff must do reasonable research to locate the documents requested.

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motions to compel further responses to discovery are GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Opposition

Plaintiff argues the motions are defective because Defendants only filed two motions to seek multiple types of discovery. However, Defendants only moved to compel further responses to interrogatories and requests for production. Therefore, two motions were proper.

Plaintiff also argues that the motions are defective because the separate statements do not include Plaintiff’s response. The separate statements filed separately from the motions do properly include Plaintiff's responses.

Plaintiff argues that Defendants failed to acknowledge the discovery responses filed in March 2024. However, Defendants do reference those responses and properly sought further responses.

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory here because Plaintiff unsuccessfully opposed the motion. However, the sanctions requested are excessive and Plaintiff fails to include his hourly rate and the time spent on these motions. Therefore, the Court awards Plaintiff $1060 total for two hours of attorney time at a rate of $500 per hour and filing fees.

Conclusion