Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV16755, Date: 2024-01-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV16755 Hearing Date: January 3, 2024 Dept: 74
Malak
Enterprises, LLC v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.
BACKGROUND
This action arises from a
contractual dispute.
On May 20, 2022, Plaintiff Malak
Enterprises, LLC (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc.
(Defendant). The complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach
of contract, (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3)
promissory estoppel, and (4) declaratory relief.
On December 7, 2022, Plaintiff
served Defendant with Special Interrogatories.
On January 27, 2023, Defendant
served Plaintiff with responses to the Special Interrogatories. Plaintiff was
dissatisfied with some of the responses.
On May 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed
this motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 10-17.
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
Plaintiff seeks further responses to
Special Interrogatory Nos. 10-17.
Special Interrogatory No. 10
Special Interrogatory No. 11
This interrogatory asks Defendant to
identify all leases that Defendant had in California from May 1, 2016, until
now. During the meet-and-confer process, Plaintiff agreed based on the parties’
November 3, 2023 Informal Discovery Conference to limit its motion to compel to
pursue only the names and addresses of Defendant’s leases in Southern
California as of May 2021. (Thorosian Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A, pp. 4, 5.) No further
response is necessary.
Special Interrogatory No. 12
This interrogatory asks Defendant to
identify all leases that Defendant had in Southern California from May 1, 2016,
until the present. During the meet-and-confer process, Plaintiff agreed based
on the parties’ November 3, 2023 Informal Discovery Conference to limit its
motion to compel to pursue only the names and addresses of Defendant’s leases
in Southern California as of May 2021. (Thorosian Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A, pp. 4, 5.)
No further response is necessary.
Special Interrogatory No. 13
This interrogatory asks Defendant to
identify all leases that Defendant terminated from May 1, 2016, until the
present. During the meet-and-confer process, Plaintiff agreed based on the
parties’ November 3, 2023 Informal Discovery Conference to limit its motion to
compel to pursue only the names and addresses of Defendant’s leases in Southern
California as of May 2021. (Thorosian Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A, pp. 4, 5.) No further
response is necessary.
Special Interrogatory No. 14
Special Interrogatory No. 15
This interrogatory asks Defendant to
identify all leases that Defendant terminated from May 1, 2016, until the
present that were still in the buildout phase. During the meet-and-confer
process, Plaintiff agreed based on the parties’ November 3, 2023 Informal
Discovery Conference to limit its motion to compel to pursue only the names and
addresses of Defendant’s leases in Southern California as of May 2021.
(Thorosian Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A, pp. 4, 5.) No further response is necessary.
Special Interrogatory No. 16
This interrogatory asks Defendant to
identify all leases that Defendant terminated from May 1, 2016, until the
present that did not pertain to an open and operating store. During the
meet-and-confer process, Plaintiff agreed based on the parties’ November 3,
2023 Informal Discovery Conference to limit its motion to compel to pursue only
the names and addresses of Defendant’s leases in Southern California as of May
2021. (Thorosian Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A, pp. 4, 5.) No further response is
necessary.
Special Interrogatory No. 17
This interrogatory asks Defendant to
identify all leases that Defendant terminated due to the acquisition of
Speedway, LLC. During the meet-and-confer process, Plaintiff agreed based on
the parties’ November 3, 2023 Informal Discovery Conference to limit its motion
to compel to pursue only the names and addresses of Defendant’s leases in
Southern California as of May 2021. (Thorosian Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A, pp. 4, 5.) No
further response is necessary.
CONCLUSION
Defendant shall produce by January 13,
2024, Code-compliant responses as agreed during the parties’ meet-and-confer
process. The court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions because many of
Defendant’s objections had merit.
Plaintiff shall give notice.
Malak
Enterprises, LLC v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set
One)
The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and
reply.
BACKGROUND
This action arises from a
contractual dispute.
On May 20, 2022, Plaintiff Malak
Enterprises, LLC (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc.
(Defendant). The complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach
of contract, (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3)
promissory estoppel, and (4) declaratory relief.
On December 7, 2022, Plaintiff
served Defendant with requests for production of documents (RFPs).
On January 27, 2023, Defendant
served Plaintiff with responses to the RFPs. Plaintiff was dissatisfied with
some of the responses.
On May 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed
this motion to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 9-15.
LEGAL STANDARD
A propounding party may move for an
order compelling a further response to a demand for inspection if the
propounding party deems that an answer or statement of compliance is evasive or
incomplete, or that an objection is “without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) Such a
motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause for the discovery
sought and be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§§ 2031.310, subd. (b), 2031.210, subd. (b).) ¿
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks further responses to
RFP Nos. 9-15.
RFP No. 9
This RFP seeks production of all lease
agreements that Defendant executed in California from May 1, 2016, until the
present. During the meet-and-confer process, Plaintiff
agreed to limit its motion to compel based on the parties’ Informal Discovery
Conference on November 3, 2023. (Thorosian Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A, p. 5.)
Accordingly, Defendant need not produce the actual leases and further response
is not necessary.
RFP No. 10
This RFP seeks production of all lease
agreements that Defendant executed in Southern California from May 1, 2016,
until the present. During the meet-and-confer process, Plaintiff agreed to
limit its motion to compel based on the parties’ Informal Discovery Conference
on November 3, 2023. (Thorosian Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A, p. 5.) Accordingly, Defendant
need not produce the actual leases and further response is not necessary.
RFP No. 11
This RFP seeks production of all lease
termination notices that Defendant sent from May 1, 2016, until the present.
During the meet-and-confer process following the parties’ Informal Discovery
Conference on November 3, 2023, Defendant has agreed to produce all lease
termination notices it sent in May 2021 covering Southern California.
(Opposition, p. 2; Thorosian Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A, p. 3, 5.) No further response
is necessary.
RFP No. 12
This RFP seeks production of all leases
that Defendant terminated from May 1, 2016, until now that were still in
the due diligence phase. During the meet-and-confer
process, Plaintiff agreed to limit its motion to compel based on the parties’
Informal Discovery Conference on November 3, 2023. (Thorosian Decl., ¶ 3; Ex.
A, p. 5.) Accordingly, Defendant need not produce the actual leases and further
response is not necessary.
RFP No. 13
This RFP seeks production of all leases
that Defendant terminated from May 1, 2016, until now that were still in the
buildout phase. During the meet-and-confer process,
Plaintiff agreed to limit its motion to compel based on the parties’ Informal
Discovery Conference on November 3, 2023. (Thorosian Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A, p. 5.)
Accordingly, Defendant need not produce the actual leases and further response
is not necessary.
RFP No. 14
This RFP seeks production of all leases
that Defendant terminated from May 1, 2016, until now that did not have an open
and operating store. During the meet-and-confer
process, Plaintiff agreed to limit its motion to compel based on the parties’
Informal Discovery Conference on November 3, 2023. (Thorosian Decl., ¶ 3; Ex.
A, p. 5.) Accordingly, Defendant need not produce the actual leases and further
response is not necessary.
RFP No. 15
This RFP seeks production of all leases
that Defendant terminated due to Defendant’s acquisition of Speedway, LLC.
During the meet-and-confer process, Plaintiff agreed to limit its motion to
compel based on the parties’ Informal Discovery Conference on November 3, 2023.
(Thorosian Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A, p. 5.) Accordingly, Defendant need not produce
the actual leases and further response is not necessary.
CONCLUSION
Defendant shall produce by January 13,
2024, the documents to which the parties agreed in the meet-and-confer
process. The court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions because many of
Defendant’s objections had merit.
Plaintiff shall give notice.