Judge Colin Leis, Case Number: 21STCV04930, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV04930, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04930 Hearing Date: January 3, 2024 Dept: 74

Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. v. Paragon Relocation Resources, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) from Defendant Paragon Relocation Resources, Inc.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from a contractual dispute.

On February 8, 2021, Plaintiff Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Paragon Relocation Resources, Inc. (Defendant) and Paragon Global Resources, Inc. The complaint alleges breach of contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

On September 2, 2021, Plaintiff propounded special interrogatories on Defendant.

On December 7, 2021, Defendant provided responses. Plaintiff was dissatisfied.

The parties met and conferred to no avail.

Defendant served supplemental responses by April 25, 2023. Plaintiff was still dissatisfied.

On June 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 11, 12, 15-20, 23-35, 43, 46-71, 73, 76, 77, 79, 80, and 85.[1]

LEGAL STANDARD

¿¿A propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to interrogatories if the propounding party deems that an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete, or that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) Such a motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).)

DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, the court notes that Defendant’s initial boilerplate objections are too general and improper. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a); Korea Data Systems v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516.) Accordingly, the court will only address the objections that Defendant expands upon in its opposition.[2] Moreover, Defendant claims this motion is moot with respect to Special Interrogatory Nos. 46-60 but has not provided the court with its supplemental responses. Plaintiff in turn makes the case that Defendant has not furnished supplemental responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 46-60. The court will rule on all the Special Interrogatories at issue, then.

Special Interrogatory No. 11

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the term “funding process” is vague. But Plaintiff has since clarified the meaning of this term in a meet and confer letter, as well as the separate statement. To the extent the information sought is unavailable because it is stored on one corrupted hard drive, Defendant shall make a reasonable effort to obtain the information from another source, such as another uncorrupted hard drive. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).) Further response is necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 12

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the term “funding process” is vague. But Plaintiff has since clarified the meaning of this term in a meet and confer letter, as well as the separate statement. Moreover, Defendant has not persuaded the court that access to the corrupted hard drive is necessary to identify those who have knowledge of the funding process in connection with the relocation services agreement. Further response is necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 15

Defendant responded by stating it would comply with the request subject to a protective order. But the parties stipulated to a protective order on January 5, 2022. Additionally, Defendant has not persuaded the court that access to the corrupted hard drive is necessary to identify individuals who had access to funds paid in connection with the relocation services agreement. Further response is necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 16

Defendant responded by stating it would comply with the request subject to a protective order. But the parties stipulated to a protective order on January 5, 2022. Moreover, Defendant has not persuaded the court that access to the corrupted hard drive is necessary to identify individuals who had access to funds paid in connection with the relocation services agreement. Further response is necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 17

Defendant has not persuaded the court that this request is overly burdensome. To the extent the information sought is unavailable because it is stored on one corrupted hard drive, Defendant shall make a reasonable effort to obtain the information from another source, such as another uncorrupted hard drive. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).) Further response is necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 18

Defendant has not persuaded the court that this request is overly burdensome. Nor has Defendant persuaded the court that access to the corrupted hard drive is necessary to identify individuals with knowledge of communications between the parties about the relocation services agreement. Further response is necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 19

Special Interrogatory No. 20

Special Interrogatory No. 23

Further response is not necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 24

Further response is not necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 25

Defendant has not persuaded the court that this request is overly burdensome, especially since Plaintiff has narrowed the request. To the extent the information sought is unavailable because it is stored on one corrupted hard drive, Defendant shall make a reasonable effort to obtain the information from another source, such as another uncorrupted hard drive. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).) Further response is necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 26

Defendant has not persuaded the court that this request is overly burdensome, especially since Plaintiff has narrowed the request. Nor has Defendant persuaded the court that access to the corrupted hard drive is necessary to identify individuals with knowledge of communications between Joseph Morabito and Plaintiff during the relevant timeframe. Further response is necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 27

Special Interrogatory No. 28

Defendant has not persuaded the court that this request is overly burdensome, especially since Plaintiff has narrowed the request. Nor has Defendant persuaded the court that access to the corrupted hard drive is necessary to identify individuals with knowledge of communications between Jim Davis and Plaintiff during the relevant timeframe. Further response is necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 29

Defendant specified the document (the Relocation Services Agreement) from which Plaintiff can ascertain the information sought. However, Defendant did not cite Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 in its response, as required by the statute. Moreover, Defendant did not specify where in the agreement Plaintiff could locate the information sought. Further response is necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 30

Further response is not necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 31

In its opposition, Defendant has not expanded on its initial boilerplate objections. To the extent the information sought is unavailable because it is stored on one corrupted hard drive, Defendant shall make a reasonable effort to obtain the information from another source, such as another uncorrupted hard drive. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).) Further response is necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 32

Special Interrogatory No. 33

In its opposition, Defendant has not expanded on its initial boilerplate objections. Nor has Defendant persuaded the court that access to the corrupted hard drive is necessary to identify individuals responsible for the disposition of funds paid to Defendant by Plaintiff under the relocation services agreement. Further response is necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 34

Further response is not necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 35

Defendant responded by stating it would comply with the request subject to a protective order. But the parties stipulated to a protective order on January 5, 2022. To the extent the information sought is unavailable because it is stored on one corrupted hard drive, Defendant shall make a reasonable effort to obtain the information from another source, such as another uncorrupted hard drive. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).) Further response is necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 43

In its opposition, Defendant has not expanded on its initial boilerplate objections. Nor has Defendant persuaded the court that access to the corrupted hard drive is necessary to identify facts that would support the contention that the relocation services agreement was exclusive. Further response is necessary.

Special Interrogatory Nos. 46-60

Defendant claims it sufficiently supplemented its responses to these Special Interrogatories “close in time to [its] opposition.” (Opposition, p. 2.) But Defendant has not provided the court with those supplemental responses to the Special Interrogatories at issue. And Plaintiff claims it never received the responses, either. (Reply, p. 4.) To the extent the information sought in these Special Interrogatories is unavailable because it is stored on one corrupted hard drive, Defendant shall make a reasonable effort to obtain the information from another source, such as another uncorrupted hard drive. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).) Further response is necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 61

In its opposition, Defendant does not expand upon its initial boilerplate objections. To the extent the information sought is unavailable because it is stored on one corrupted hard drive, Defendant shall make a reasonable effort to obtain the information from another source, such as another uncorrupted hard drive. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).) Further response is necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 62

Further response is not necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 63

Special Interrogatory No. 64

Special Interrogatory No. 65

Further response is not necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 66

Special Interrogatory No. 67

In its opposition, Defendant does not expand upon its initial boilerplate objections. Nor has Defendant persuaded the court that access to the corrupted hard drive is necessary to identify those with whom Defendant has discussed the claims of its first amended cross-complaint. Further response is necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 68

Special Interrogatory No. 69

Further response is not necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 70

Special Interrogatory No. 71

Special Interrogatory No. 73

In its opposition, Defendant does not expand upon its initial boilerplate objections. Nor has Defendant persuaded the court that access to the corrupted hard drive is necessary to identify those with knowledge of any meetings where the parties made any agreement about the Torrance-Plano move. Further response is necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 76

Further response is not necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 77

In its opposition, Defendant does not expand upon its initial boilerplate objections. Nor has Defendant persuaded the court that access to the corrupted hard drive is necessary to identify those with knowledge of Defendant’s claimed damages in the first amended cross-complaint. Further response is necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 79

Special Interrogatory No. 80

In its opposition, Defendant does not expand upon its initial boilerplate objections. Nor has Defendant persuaded the court that access to the corrupted hard drive is necessary to identify those with knowledge of any agreements between the parties. Further response is necessary.

Special Interrogatory No. 85

In its opposition, Defendant does not expand upon its initial boilerplate objections. Nor has Defendant persuaded the court that access to the corrupted hard drive is necessary to identify those with knowledge of the facts alleged in the first amended cross-complaint. Further response is necessary.

Monetary Sanctions

The court will not award sanctions because Plaintiff’s counsel has not sufficiently substantiated her request by demonstrating the fees she incurred from this motion in particular. Rather, Plaintiff’s counsel requests a lump sum for the work she performed on multiple discovery motions. (Toboco Decl., ¶ 21.)

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery responses in part. Defendant shall provide further Code-Compliant responses by January 13, 2024, to Special Interrogatory Nos. 11, 12, 15-20, 25-29, 31-33, 35, 43, 46-60, 61, 63, 64, 66-68, 70, 71, 73, 77, 79, 80, 85. The court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

[1] Plaintiff’s separate statement includes additional Special Interrogatories, which the court will not consider.

[2] The court further notes that Defendant has not provided its own separate statement.

Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. v. Paragon Relocation Resources, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) from Defendant Paragon Relocation Resources, Inc.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from a contractual dispute.

On September 2, 2021, Plaintiff propounded form interrogatories on Defendant.

On December 7, 2021, Defendant provided responses. Plaintiff was dissatisfied.

The parties met and conferred to no avail.

Defendant served supplemental responses by April 25, 2023. Plaintiff was still dissatisfied.

On June 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 from Defendant.

LEGAL STANDARD

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks further response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, which asks Defendant, in part, to identify all documents supporting its responses to certain Requests for Admission (RFAs), as well as the contact information of individuals who have the documents. In its opposition, Defendant objects it cannot respond because the sought documents were lost on a corrupted hard drive. True, Defendant states it is in the process of retrieving the documents with the help of a data recovery service. But Defendant has not provided the contact information of the individual to whom the corrupted hard drive belongs, or the contact information of anyone who may have an uncorrupted hard drive with the relevant documents. Moreover, Defendant initially objected to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, as it pertained to RFA No. 36, on the grounds that it was not a party to the Relocation Services Agreement. In its opposition, though, Defendant concedes that this was an error. Defendant also stands by its boilerplate objections but fails to further develop them in the opposition. Thus, further response is necessary.

However, the court will not award sanctions because Plaintiff’s counsel has not sufficiently substantiated her request by demonstrating the fees she incurred from this motion in particular. Rather, Plaintiff’s counsel requests a lump sum for the work she performed on multiple discovery motions. (Toboco Decl., ¶ 21.)

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. Defendant shall provide further Code-complaint responses by January 13, 2024. The court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.