Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV26149, Date: 2023-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26149    Hearing Date: October 2, 2023    Dept: 74

Jan-Serve, LLC v. Pasadena Playhouse State Theatre of California, Inc., et al.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One)

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was timely filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005 [“All papers opposing a motion […] shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days […] before the hearing.”].)

TENTATIVE RULING

            The court grants this motion in part and awards Defendant attorney fees because Plaintiff has not provided substantial justification for its inadequate response to Form Interrogatory No. 9.1.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from a contractual dispute.

            On August 12, 2022, Plaintiff Jan-Serve, LLC (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Pasadena Playhouse (Defendant). The complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with contractual relations, and unfair business practices.

            On September 22, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with discovery, including the Form Interrogatories at issue.

            Defendant was dissatisfied with Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 9.1 and 9.2. Despite meeting and conferring, the parties could not resolve their dispute over the discovery issues.

            On August 1, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 9.1 and 9.2 and request for sanctions.

LEGAL STANDARD 

            A propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to an interrogatory if the propounding party deems that an answer is evasive or incomplete, or that an objection 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)(1).) 

            If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed such a motion, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant seeks further responses from Plaintiff to Form Interrogatory Nos. 9.1 and 9.2. Form Interrogatory No. 9.1 asks whether Plaintiff attributes any other damages to the incident. Form Interrogatory 9.2 asks Plaintiff to identify documents supporting those other damages.

In its supplemental response to Form Interrogatory 9.1, Plaintiff stands by a litany of boilerplate objections, which the court finds too general and evasive. (Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1190 [noting that party may move for order compelling further response to interrogatories when responding party has provided boilerplate responses lacking specificity].) Plaintiff also supplemented its response to Form Interrogatory No. 9.1 by stating that any calculation of damages would require an expert, which Plaintiff has yet to retain. But Plaintiff has not persuaded the court that an expert would be necessary for an estimate of damages. Thus, further response will be necessary.

In its supplemental response to Form Interrogatory No. 9.2, Plaintiff lists the same boilerplate objections. However, Plaintiff does cite a document that would support damages—namely, the janitorial contract from July 2021. Further response to this interrogatory is therefore unnecessary.

            Sanctions are warranted here because Plaintiff has not provided a substantial justification for its refusal to provide an estimate of damages in response to Form Interrogatory No. 9.1. The court finds Defendant’s counsel’s hourly rate reasonable and notes he has substantiated his request with a breakdown of work performed. (Nobel Decl., ¶¶ 18-19.) Because Defendant did not need to file any reply to Plaintiff’s non-existent opposition, the court adjusts Defendant’s recoverable hours accordingly and orders Plaintiff to pay $4,295 [ =  $385 x (1.5 hours (research) + 8.5 hours (drafting motion and declaration) + 1 hour (preparation for and attendance at hearing)) + $60 (filing fee)].

CONCLUSION

              Based on the foregoing, the court grants Defendant’s motion to compel further response to Form Interrogatory 9.1. The court orders Plaintiff to serve on Defendant a complete, code-compliant, further response, without objections within 10 days of the date of this order.

            The court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further response for Form Interrogatory 9.2.

            Plaintiff shall pay Defendant attorney fees in the sum of $4,295 by November 2, 2023.

              Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.