Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Baratta et al v Knutte et al, Date: 2023-07-24 Tentative Ruling

Before the Court at present are three motions to compel, all filed by Plaintiff James Baratta (“Plaintiff”) on 3/27/23, seeking verified further responses from defendant Jacob Knutte (“Knutte”) on Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (the “SROGs”), Form Interrogatories (the “FROGs”), and Requests for Production (the “RFPs”), all Set One, respectively.  Knutte has not filed any opposition papers for any of the Motions.

The Motions are GRANTED IN PART. 

For the SROGs, Knutte’s responses lack adequate detail for SROG Nos. 1-10, such as how many complaints of each type were reported and when, and the nature of each, and what repairs were made when and by whom. But the responses for SROGs 11-15 are adequate. The Motion as to the SROGs is thus GRANTED as to SROG Nos. 1-10 but DENIED for Nos. 11-15.

For the FROGs, Knutte’s responses fail to fully respond to the requests, and specifically, to the subparts. The Motion as to the FROGs is therefore GRANTED.

For the RFPs, Knutte evidently failed to respond at all, except that some documents were provided. The Motion as to the RFPs is therefore GRANTED.  Knutte is to provide written  responses, with verifications, which comply with C.C.P. § 2031.210(a) [the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category by any of the following: “(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand…. (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply…. or (3) an objection to the particular demand.” In addition, Knutte is to comply with C.C.P. § 2031.220, which requires that a statement that the party will comply with the particular demand state that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.  In accordance with C.C.P. § 2031.280(a), Knutte is also to identify which of the documents he has produced (or will produce along with his written response) correspond to which of the stated RFP. 

All of the responses required as stated above are to be served by Knutte on counsel for Plaintiff within 20 days after service of notice of this ruling.

However, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. Although most of the responses were deficient in some respects, as noted above, and no written responses were provided with the RFPs at all, Knutte appears to have made a substantial and good faith effort to respond to all of the discovery at issue, soon after his prior counsel’s withdrawal.  Under these circumstances, the imposition of sanctions appears unjust.

Counsel for Plaintiff is to give notice of these rulings.