Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV03683, Date: 2025-04-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV03683 Hearing Date: April 15, 2025 Dept: O
Tentative Ruling
(1) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM DEFENDANT is TBD.
(2) DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM DEFENDANT is TBD.
Background
This is a collections case.
On November 28, 2023, Plaintiff CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. filed suit against CHRISTOPHER CHRISTOPHER Plaintiff, v. TORRES C TORRES AKA AKA CHRISTOPHER CARLOS TORRES AKA CHRIS TORRES DBA H & I INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADBA H&I INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL SVC for (1) Breach of Promissory Note alleging that the sum of $175,103.92 remains unpaid on the $211,103.92 note.
On February 14, 2024, Defendant filed his answer.
On November 4, 2024, Defendant filed the instant two motions.
On April 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed oppositions.
On April 8, 2025, Defendant filed replies.
Discussion
At the outset, the court notes that Defendant’s request for relief is unclear, which is also a point raised by Plaintiff. While there is one motion labelled as a compel further responses to form interrogatories and another to compel the production of documents, both separate statements focus on FROGs. However, the court is unaware of authority that permits the compelling of documents in response to an interrogatory. With that, the court will only focus on further responses to FROGs, not RFPs. The separate statement provides the following:
DEFENDANT'S FORM INTERROGATORY 17.1(b): DEFENDANT'S FORM INTERROGATORY 17.1(b) requesting: "(b) State all facts on which you base your response [if you deny your request for admission]:
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: (b): Had defendant remitted all payments in accordance with the terms of the promissory note, defendant would have paid the account in full.
SECOND DISCOVERY ISSUE DEFENDANT'S FORM INTERROGATORY 17.1(d): DEFENDANT'S FORM INTERROGATORY 17.1(d) propounded on Plaintiff states: identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, address, and telephone number of the person who has each document or thing. Plaintiff's response: (d) Promissory Note, Adjustment Bureau, Inc. and Christopher Torres
Defendant argues that further responses are warranted because “Defendant was paying $300 per month towards the debt, but the debt continued to increase. Defendant was never going to pay off his debt. Defendant needs facts showing what the principal owed was, what the interest is, information that will allow defendant to figure out what he actually owes the Plaintiff…. Plaintiff is suing Defendant for money that they say he owes. No ledgers, no internal documents are identified.” (Separate Statement p. 2.) In reply, Defendant presents more which is that further responses are necessary as Plaintiff has not provided documents as to how it calculated “declining interest,” a term utilized in the promissory note which Plaintiff is attempting to collect on, such that Defendant assumes Plaintiff “did not make these terms and figures up arbitrarily.”
Here, the court cannot reach the merits the motion. For one, the RFA this interrogatory is directed at is not provided. Second, there is a promissory note, but that also has not been provided.
Monetary sanctions will likely be imposed on the non-prevailing party.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the motions are TBD.