Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV02267, Date: 2023-11-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV02267 Hearing Date: January 24, 2024 Dept: 74
Andrew Leavenworth, et al. v. Self-Realization Fellowship Church, et al.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) from Defendant Gurbir Maker and Request for Sanctions
The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.
BACKGROUND
This action arises from a dispute over personal property.
On June 22, 2023, Plaintiff Andrew Leavenworth (Plaintiff) filed a first amended complaint (FAC) on behalf of Joan Wight (Decedent). Gurbir Maker (Defendant), Ujjal Maker, Alisa Miller Fein, Chris Bagley, Self-Realization Fellowship Church, Doris Schneider, and Rosario Hurley are the named Defendants.
On March 17, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with form interrogatories (set one).
On April 21, 2023, Defendant served its initial responses. Plaintiff was dissatisfied.
On June 2, 2023, Defendant served amended responses. Plaintiff was still dissatisfied.
On July 25, 2023, Defendant served further amended responses. On July 26, 2023, Defendant served verifications to the further amended responses.
On July 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.4 and 17.1.
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
The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery because its separate statement is insufficient. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 892-893.) Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subdivision (c), the separate statement in this context must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document to determine the full request and the full response. Accordingly, the separate statement must include, for each discovery request at issue, the text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (c)(2).)
Here, Plaintiff’s separate statement does not include Defendant’s further amended responses from July 25, 2023. The court also notes that Plaintiff had ample time to rectify the deficient separate statement. That is, by July 26, 2023, Defendant had served Plaintiff with further amended responses and verifications. Within 45 days of that date, Plaintiff could have filed another motion to compel or an amended motion with a sufficient separate statement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).)
Because Plaintiff has not prevailed on this motion, the court will not grant his request for sanctions. However, the court finds that sanctions against Plaintiff are warranted because he has used a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (b), 2023.030, subd. (a).)
CONCLUSION
The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.4 and 17.1 and request for sanctions. The court orders Plaintiff to pay by February 24, 2024, Defendant’s counsel $1,500 for attorney’s fees as discovery sanctions.
Plaintiff shall give notice.
////////////////////////////////////
Andrew Leavenworth, et al. v.
Self-Realization Fellowship Church, et al.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) from Defendant Ujjal Maker and
Request for Sanctions
The
court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.
BACKGROUND
This
action arises from a dispute over personal property.
On
June 22, 2023, Plaintiff Andrew Leavenworth (Plaintiff) filed a first amended
complaint (FAC) on behalf of Joan Wight (Decedent). Gurbir Maker, Ujjal Maker
(Defendant), Alisa Miller Fein, Chris Bagley, Self-Realization Fellowship
Church, Doris Schneider, and Rosario Hurley are the named Defendants.
On
February 24, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with form interrogatories (set
one).
On
April 21, 2023, Defendant served its initial responses. Plaintiff was
dissatisfied.
On
June 2, 2023, Defendant served amended responses. Plaintiff was still
dissatisfied.
On
July 25, 2023, Gurbir Maker served further amended responses, but Defendant did
not do so. (Corren Decl., ¶ 24; Ex. O.)
On
July 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further responses to Form
Interrogatory Nos. 12.4 and 17.1.
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
Plaintiff
seeks further responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.4 and 17.1. As a
preliminary matter, the court finds 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 consider the objections Defendant
expands upon in its opposition.
Form Interrogatory No. 12.4
This interrogatory asks Defendant to
identify any photographs, films, or videotapes concerning the incident or
Plaintiff’s injuries. In response, Defendant identified the number of
photographs, what the photographs depict, the timeframe when the photographs
were taken, the individuals who took the photographs, and the individuals who
are in possession of the photographs. Plaintiff argues the related document
production contains no such photographs. As Defendant notes, though, this
motion only pertains to Defendant’s interrogatory responses. Plaintiff also
contends that more responsive photographs are bound to exist. Moreover, this
interrogatory does not merely request photographs Defendant took. It also seeks
responsive photographs of which Defendant has knowledge. But in its opposition,
Defendant maintains it has identified all known, responsive photographs. Further
response is not necessary.
Form Interrogatory No. 17.1
This interrogatory asks Defendant to
identify its responses to requests for admission (RFAs) that are not
unqualified admissions. For those RFAs, Defendant is required to state the
number of the request, facts on which Defendant based its response, the contact
information of individuals who have knowledge of those facts, and documents that
support the response. Defendant has provided the same response to each RFA at
issue in Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. The court finds that these responses are
not sufficiently straightforward, as required by Code of Civil Procedure
section 2030.220, subdivision (a). Further response will be necessary. To that
end, Defendant shall narrow its response to each request to the facts,
witnesses, and documents applicable to that request.
Last,
Plaintiff’s counsel seeks sanctions. Since further response was only necessary
for one of the two interrogatories at issue, the court will award Plaintiff’s
counsel attorney fees in a reduced amount. Accordingly, the court will award
Plaintiff’s counsel $1,413.56 of the $2,827.11
sought. (Corren Decl., ¶ 33.)
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court
grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Form Interrogatory No.
17.1. The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Form
Interrogatory No. 12.4. Defendant shall provide a further Code-Compliant
response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 by February 3, 2024. The court grants Plaintiff’s request for
attorney fees. The court orders Defendant to pay by February 24, 2024,
Plaintiff’s counsel $1,413.56 for attorney fees as discovery sanctions.
Plaintiff is ordered
to give notice of this ruling.