Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STCV14988, Date: 2024-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff is granted in the amount of $3,031.75. Sanctions are payable by Plaintiff within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant and its attorneys is denied.

Defendant’s counsel declares she sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel on April 2, 2024. (Decl. of Eaton ¶4, Exh. C.) Defendant’s counsel declares she sent a follow-up email on April 2, 2024, requesting Plaintiff’s counsel’s availability for an IDC. (Decl. of Eaton ¶5, Exh. D.) Defendant’s counsel declares that to date, Plaintiff’s counsel has not provided a response. (Decl. of Eaton ¶6.) Defendant’s counsel declares that because Plaintiff’s counsel has not responded concerning availability for an Informal Discovery Conference, her office was instructed by the Clerk in Dept. 71 to note the lack of response in my declaration and no Informal Discovery Conference will take place prior to the motion to compel. (Decl. of Eaton ¶8.)

On February 6, 2024, Defendant propounded its SROG on Plaintiff. (Decl. of Eaton ¶2, Exh. A.) On March 1, 2024, Plaintiff served responses to the SROG. (Decl. of Eaton ¶3, Exh. B.)

Defendant filed the instant motion on April 14, 2024. Plaintiff filed his opposition on May 3, 2024. Defendant filed its reply on May 17, 2024.

A “party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (C.C.P. §2017.010.) “[A] civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad” and the “statutes governing discovery must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.) When “a deponent fails to answer any question . . . specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (C.C.P. §2025.480(a).)

“[E]vidence is ‘relevant’ if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement.” (Moore v. Mercer (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 424, 447). A party is entitled to discover “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” (C.C.P. §2017.010.) The phrase “subject matter” is broader than relevancy to the issues (which determines admissibility of evidence at trial). (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392.) Courts have uniformly held that, for discovery purposes, information should be regarded as “relevant” to the subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.)

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories lies where the party to whom the discovery responses are directed gives responses that the propounding party deems incomplete or evasive. (C.C.P. §§2030.300(a)(1)-(3).) Providing incomplete or evasive discovery responses constitutes a misuse of the discovery process for which the court may impose sanctions. (C.C.P. §§2030.300(d), 2023.030(a).)

Plaintiff inserts boilerplate objections into all of his responses to the entire set of discovery. Boilerplate objections are inappropriate and grounds for sanctions. (Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1517.) Here, Plaintiff copied and pasted, verbatim, the same paragraph of objections throughout all of his responses. For example, SROG No. 3 seeks information regarding the last date Plaintiff lived at the Subject Property. Plaintiff raises the following boilerplate objections: “Objection; this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial doctrines…” and “Objection; this request is so overbroad as to constitute oppression.” These objections are inappropriate. The work product privilege would only protect writings, which are not called for here. (In re Jeanette H. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 25, 32 [stating attorney work product applies to material compiled by an attorney in preparation of his or her case].) Further, an attorney-client privilege objection is similarly misplaced as it does not call for a communication between an attorney and client.

Each of Plaintiff’s responses contains the following: “Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity.” For example, SROG No. 9, asks the Plaintiff to state the lease period for each residential lease he entered into at the Property. This objection is obviously misplaced as the SROGs are not inspection requests. These same objections are inserted into all of Plaintiff’s responses. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to submit further responses following the present motion without the cut and paste boilerplate objections.

Plaintiff failed to serve code-compliant responses to several SROGs; the majority of Plaintiff’s responses contain extensive paragraphs of non-responsive information that either does not address the specific SROG, contains the same conclusory statements alleged in the first amended complaint (“FAC”) or is directed in response to all Defendants instead of responding concerning information related to FPI. Pursuant to C.C.P. §2030.220(a), each answer to an interrogatory must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably permits. False and evasive answers are improper. (C.C.P. §2031.210(f).)

Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer that supplies only a portion of the information sought is improper. It is also improper to provide “deftly worded conclusory answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) Plaintiff’s responses to SROG Nos. 18, 28, 29, 32, 38, 43, 52, 55, 64, 73, 79, 85, 88, and 100 fall short of these requirements. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to provide responsive answers to SROG Nos. 18, 28, 29, 32, 38, 43, 52, 55, 64, 73, 79, 85, 88, and 100.

Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to provide a factual response to SROG Nos. 29, 32, 52, 85, and 88, which seek information related specifically to interactions, notice, and actions/inactions of FPI. Plaintiff’s responses to these SROGs failed to provide factual responses at all, and instead provided a generic response concerning “Defendants” collectively. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to provide responsive answers to SROG Nos. 29, 32, 52, 85, and 88.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to provide substantive, responsive answers without boilerplate objections to SROG Nos. 18, 28, 29, 32, 38, 43, 52, 55, 64, 73, 79, 85, 88, and 100.

when a party files a motion to compel further responses, unless the Court finds, “the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $2,194.25. (Decl. of Eaton ¶9.) Defendant’s counsel declares her billable rate on this file is $335.00 per hour, and associate Mustafa Karim’s rate is $215.00. (Decl. of Eaton ¶9.) Defendant’s counsel declares she spent 8.8 hours preparing and reviewing this motion and a second motion for Larisha Perkins, and Mustafa Karim spent 6.7 hours preparing the separate statement in support of this motion and the separate statement in support of the motion for Larisha Perkins. (Decl. of Eaton ¶9.) Defendant’s counsel declares that because the motions were all quite similar, and much of the work duplicative, she divided the total cost to prepare the motions in half and attributed that amount to each motion. (Decl. of Eaton ¶9.) Defendant’s counsel declares she estimates an additional 2.5 hours to review any opposition, review legal authority therein, prepare a reply, and appear at the hearing. (Decl. of Eaton ¶10.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares the total cost to prepare the present motion to compel against Plaintiff to $3,031.75, representative of $2,194.25 (cost to prepare the motion) plus $837.50 in additional cost to file reply brief and appear at the hearing. (Decl. of Eaton ¶11.)

Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff is granted in the amount of $3,031.75. Sanctions are payable by Plaintiff within 20 days.

Plaintiff also requests sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record. Here, Plaintiff failed to respond to any of FPI’s meet and confer efforts. Plaintiff provides no declaration that he made a good faith effort to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel. In light of the Court’s ruling on the motion, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Defendant’s motion to compel further answers to SROG Nos. 18, 28, 29, 32, 38, 43, 52, 55, 64, 73, 79, 85, 88, and 100 from Plaintiff Sampson is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to produce Code-compliant responses without boilerplate objections within 20 days.

Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff Sampson is granted in the amount of $3,031.75. Sanctions are payable by Plaintiff within 20 days.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court