Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 23STCV04271, Date: 2024-01-11 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties
concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon
resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an
agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if
you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by
notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDept71@LACourt.org.  Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.



           
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear
at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue
the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties
in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to
argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words
"SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.    
If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via
Court-Connect.

If
the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling,
the Court will take the  matter off calendar.

                       
  

            Note
that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court. 
 

 

            If you
submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or
thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the
court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 23STCV04271    Hearing Date: January 11, 2024    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Robert Yager’s motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff Blackburn Holdings, LLC, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) is granted. Plaintiff is to provide further responses within 20 days. Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted against Plaintiff and his counsel, Robert Gentino, in the reduced amount of $1,868.91. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Defendant Robert Yager’s motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff Blackburn Holdings, LLC, to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) is granted. Plaintiff is to provide further responses within 20 days. Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted against Plaintiff and his counsel, Robert Gentino, in the reduced amount of $368.91. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Defendant Robert Yager’s motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff Blackburn Holdings, LLC, to Defendant’s Request for Production (Set One) is granted. Plaintiff is to provide further responses within 20 days. Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted against Plaintiff and his counsel, Robert Gentino, in the reduced amount of $368.91. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Defendant Robert Yager’s motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff Blackburn Holdings, LLC, to Defendant’s Request for Admissions (Set One) is granted.  Plaintiff is to provide further responses within 20 days. Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted against Plaintiff and his counsel, Robert Gentino, in the reduced amount of $368.91. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

          Defendant Robert Yager (“Yager”) (“Defendant”) moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff Blackburn Holdings, LLC (“Blackburn”) (“Plaintiff”) to its Form Interrogatories (Set One) (“FROG”).  (Notice of Motion FROG, pg. 2; C.C.P §§2023.010, 2023.030, 2030.300.)  Defendant also moves for monetary sanctions of $1,568.91 against Plaintiff and its attorney, Robert Gentino.  (Notice of Motion FROG, pg. 2.)

Defendant moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff to its Special Interrogatories (“SROG”) (Set One).  (Notice of Motion SROG, pg. 2; C.C.P §§2023.010, 2023.030, 2030.300.)  Defendant also moves for monetary sanctions of $1,568.91 against Plaintiff and its attorney, Robert Gentino.  (Notice of Motion SROG, pg. 2.)

Defendant moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff to its Request for Production (“RFP”) (Set One).  (Notice of Motion RFP, pg. 2; C.C.P §§2023.010, 2023.030, 2031.310.)  Defendant also moves for monetary sanctions of $1,568.91 against Plaintiff and its attorney, Robert Gentino.  (Notice of Motion RFP, pg. 2.)

          Defendant moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff to its Request for Admissions (“RFA”) (Set One).  (Notice of Motion RFA, pg. 2; C.C.P §§2023.010, 2023.030, 2033.290.)  Defendant also moves for monetary sanctions of $1,568.91 against Plaintiff and its attorney, Robert Gentino.  (Notice of Motion RFA, pg. 2.)

          Plaintiff filed a late opposition (1/10/24 at 3:51p.m., the day before the hearing) indicating that service of the motions was improper because it was via Dropbox and that he had not consented to service via Dropbox.  The Court reviewed the motions and finds that the proof of service of same indicate service was made by e-mail. 

Meet and Confer

C.C.P. §2030.300(b), C.C.P. §2031.310(b)(2), and C.C.P. §2033.290(b)(1) provide that a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admissions “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”  A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.  (C.C.P. §2016.040.)

Defendant’s counsel declares on July 3, 2023, he sent a meet and confer letters to Plaintiff’s former counsel, Jonathan Gerber (“Gerber”), concerning Plaintiff’s objections to FROG, SROG, RFP, and RFA.  (Decl. of Riley ¶9, Exh. 9.)  Defendant’s counsel declares Gerber requested an additional extension of time to provide further responses to the outstanding discovery.  (Decl. of Riley ¶10, Exh. 10.)  

Defendant’s counsel declares on or about August 18, 2023, Plaintiff’s current counsel, Robert Gentino (“Gentino”) sent Plaintiff’s counsel and email advising him that he was substituting into the action.  (Decl. of Riley ¶11, Exh. 11.)  Defendant’s counsel declares on August 23, 2023, Gentino sent Plaintiff’s counsel an email requesting an additional two-week extension to September 11, 2023, to provide further responses to the discovery, extending Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to October 11, 2023.  (Decl. of Riley ¶12, Exh. 12.)  Defendant’s counsel declares he granted Gentino’s request for a further extension.  (Decl. of Riley ¶13, Exh. 13.)  Defendant’s counsel declares notwithstanding the extension, no response to the discovery was received from Gentino.  (Decl. of Riley ¶13.) 

Defendant’s counsel declares on September 26, 2023, he sent an email to Gentino advising him that the Court required an IDC before a motion to compel could be brought and asked him whether he was willing to attend an IDC and whether he would extend the date for motions to compel to October 31, 2023.  (Decl. of Riley ¶16, Exh. 16.)  Defendant’s counsel declares Gentino responded, “Yes, and I will serve responses this week.”  (Decl. of Riley ¶16, Exh. 16.)  Defendant’s counsel declares he advised Gentino that he would schedule the IDC for October 10, 2023.  (Decl. of Riley ¶16, Exh. 16.)  Defendant’s counsel declares on October 3, 2023, he attempted to follow up on the status of Plaintiff’s portion of the joint IDC brief, and on October 4, 2023, Gentino responded, “IDC is too early. Waiting to speak with former counsel and client to obtain responses. I don’t have all info yet and grant you open extension to compel further until I get responses either this or next week. Thank you.”  (Decl. of Riley ¶17, Exh. 17.)  The Court determines Defendant’s meet and confer declaration is sufficient under C.C.P. §2030.300(b), C.C.P. §2031.310(b)(2), and C.C.P. §2033.290(b)(1).

The Court also notes that the subject discovery was the subject of an informal discovery conference on October 23, 2024 at which Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to provide Code of Civil Procedure compliant responses by November 30, 2024.

Background

On May 15, 2023, Defendant served FROG, SROG, RFP, and RFA on Plaintiff.  (Decl. of Riley ¶¶2-6, Exhs. 1-4.)  On June 30, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel served responses to the FROG, SROG, RFP, and RFA that contained only objections.  (Decl. of Riley ¶8, Exhs. 5-8.). Defendant’s counsel declares he granted Plaintiff’s former and current counsel multiple extensions to provide supplemental responses.  (See Decl. of Riley ¶¶10, 12, 13.)  Defendant’s counsel declares no supplemental responses have been received.  (Decl. of Riley ¶18.)

On October 6, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motions.  Plaintiff filed a late opposition to all 4 motions (1/10/24 at 3:51p.m., the day before the hearing) indicating that service of the motions was improper because it was made via Dropbox and that he had not consented to service via Dropbox.  The Court reviewed the motions and finds that the proof of service of same indicates service was made by e-mail. 

Discussion

1.     FROG

Defendant moves to compel further responses to FROG Nos. 1.1-50.6 without objections.

The Court grants the motion pursuant to C.C.P §2030.300(a).  Plaintiff is to provide responses, without objections, within 20 days.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions for this motion totaling $1,500.00 for attorneys’ fees and filing fees of $68.91 against Plaintiff and its counsel. In light of the fact that Defendant’s separate statement largely repeats the same response from Plaintiff and its own reasons why a further response should be compelled, the Court finds the amount sought in sanctions requires a reduction. The Court awards sanctions pursuant to C.C.P. §§2031.300(c) and 2023.020 and calculates the sanctions for the instant motion as follows:

(1 hour drafting the instant motion and separate statement + 1 hour drafting the consolidated declaration + 1 hour appearing at the hearing) x $600/hour + $68.91 in filing fees = $1,868.91.

Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff and its counsel, Robert Gentino, is granted in the reduced total of $1,868.91.  Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Moving Party is to give notice of this ruling.

2.     SROG

Defendant moves to compel further responses to SROG Nos. 1-33 without objections.

The Court grants the motion pursuant to C.C.P §2030.300(a).  Plaintiff is to provide responses, without objections, within 20 days.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions for this motion totaling $1,500.00 for attorneys’ fees and filing fees of $68.91 against Plaintiff and its counsel. In light of the fact that Defendant’s separate statement largely repeats the same response from Plaintiff and its own reasons why a further response should be compelled, the Court finds the amount sought in sanctions requires a reduction. The Court awards sanctions pursuant to C.C.P. §§2031.300(c) and 2023.020 and calculates the sanctions for the instant motion as follows:

0.5 hours drafting the instant motion and separate statement x $600/hour + $68.91 in filing fees = $368.91

Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff and its counsel, Robert Gentino, is granted in the reduced total of $368.91.  Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Moving Party is to give notice of this ruling.

3.     RFP

Defendant moves to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 1-26 without objections.

The Court grants the motion pursuant to C.C.P. §2031.310(a).  Plaintiff is to provide responses, without objections, within 20 days.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions for this motion totaling $1,500.00 for attorneys’ fees and filing fees of $68.91 against Plaintiff and its counsel. In light of the fact that Defendant’s separate statement largely repeats the same response from Plaintiff and its own reasons why a further response should be compelled, the Court finds the amount sought in sanctions requires a reduction.  The Court awards sanctions pursuant to §§2030.300(d) and 2023.020 and calculates the sanctions for the instant motion as follows:

0.5 hours drafting the instant motion and separate statement x $600/hour + $68.91 in filing fees = $368.91

Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff and its counsel, Robert Gentino, is granted in the reduced total of $368.91.  Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Moving Party is to give notice of this ruling.

4.     RFA

Defendant moves to compel further responses to RFA Nos. 1-17 without objection.

The Court grants the motion pursuant to C.C.P. §2033.290(a).  Plaintiff is to provide answers, without objections, within 20 days.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions for this motion totaling $1,500.00 for attorneys’ fees and filing fees of $68.91 against Plaintiff and its counsel. In light of the fact that Defendant’s separate statement largely repeats the same response from Plaintiff and its own reasons why a further response should be compelled, the Court finds the amount sought in sanctions requires a reduction.  The Court awards sanctions pursuant to §§2030.300(d) and 2023.020 and calculates the sanctions for the instant motion as follows:

0.5 hours drafting the instant motion and separate statement x $600/hour + $68.91 in filing fees = $368.91

Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff and its counsel, Robert Gentino, is granted in the reduced total of $368.91.  Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Moving Party is to give notice of this ruling.

          Conclusion

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) is granted. Plaintiff is to provide further responses, without objections, within 20 days.

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories is granted. Plaintiff is to provide further responses, without objections, within 20 days.

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff to Defendant’s Request for Production is granted. Plaintiff is to provide further responses, without objections, within 20 days.

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff to Defendant’s Request for Admissions is granted. Plaintiff is to provide further responses, without objections, within 20 days.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted against Plaintiff and his counsel in the reduced total amount of $2,975.64.  Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Dated:  January _____, 2024