Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 24STCV16331, Date: 2025-06-11 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. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email. 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.

Plaintiff Andrew Eduardo Benitez’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant Shukrullah Quraishi and his counsel of record, John K. Paulson, jointly and severally, on the motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) is granted in the reduced amount of $1,800.00. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

On April 14, 2025, this Court held an IDC, wherein this Court deemed the issues discussed in the IDC unresolved. (4/14/25 Minute Order.) Therefore, the Court will consider the instant motion.

On or around January 2, 2025, Plaintiff served his FROG on Defendant. (Decl. of Song ¶3, Exh. A.) Defendant was grante multiple extensions to submit his responses, and on February 25, 2025, Defendant served responses on Plaintiff that were not Code-compliant. (See Decl. of Song ¶¶4-6, Exh. C.) To date, Defendant has not served Code-compliant, verified responses. (Decl. of Song ¶9.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on April 14, 2025. Defendant filed his untimely opposition on May 30, 2025. Plaintiff filed his reply on June 3, 2025.

While the Court notes Defendant’s opposition was untimely by one day, the Court in its discretion will consider Defendant’s opposition.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Defendant as to FROG Request Nos. 13.1-13.2, 16.2-16.8, and 17.1.

Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s FROG are not Code-Compliant. Plaintiff’s boilerplate objections are not proper. (See Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516 [stating boilerplate objections “[lack] . . . the specificity the statute mandates” and their use may be sanctionable].) To the extent responses are withheld due to an objection, the response must state “the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.” (C.C.P. §2030.240.) Further, Defendant’s responses are evasive.

With regard to Defendant’s response to FROG No. 17.1 for Request for Admissions (“RFA”) Nos. 34-38, a mere statement that Defendant lacks sufficient expert knowledge falls well short of satisfying his obligations under C.C.P. §2030.220(c). (C.C.P. §2030.220(c) [“If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”].)

Accordingly, Defendant is compelled to produce Code-Compliant responses to FROG Nos. 13.1-13.2, 16.2-16.8, and 17.1 for RFA Nos. 34-38 within 20 days of this ruling. To the extent any responses are protected by privilege, Plaintiff is to produce a privilege log.

Under C.C.P. §2030.300(d), “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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.” (C.C.P. §2030.300(d).)

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the total amount of $2,000.00 against Defendant and his counsel of record. (Decl. of de Song ¶¶12-14.) The Court grants Defendant’s request for sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,800.00 against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, calculated as follows:

($400.00/hour x [2 hours to prepare motion + 1 hour to review opposition + 1 hour to prepare reply + 0.5 hours to attend hearing on motion]) = $1,800.00

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant to Plaintiff’s FROG Nos. 13.1-13.2, 16.2-16.8, and 17.1 for RFA Nos. 34-38 is granted. Defendant is to provide further Code-Compliant responses within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $1,800.00. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The Court notes Plaintiff improperly reserved the hearing on the instant motion in the Court Reservation System (“CRS”) as a “Motion to Compel (name extension).” A hearing on a Motion to Compel Further is its own distinct category on the CRS and should not be reserved in CRS slots for Motions to Compel hearings. Future abuse of the CRS may result in Plaintiff’s hearing being continued to a later date in which an open slot for the correct motion can be accommodated.