Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case STCV36045 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Carla Barboza’s motion to compel Defendant Henry Garcia to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents is granted. Defendant Garcia is ordered to produce a code-compliant response and a privilege log within 15 days.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Henry Garcia to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions is granted. Defendant Garcia is ordered to produce a code-compliant response within 15 days.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Henry Garcia to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories is granted. Defendant Garcia is ordered to produce a code-compliant response and a privilege log within 15 days.

Defendant Henry Garcia’s motion to compel Plaintiff Carla Barboza to provide further responses to Defendant Garcia’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is granted with modifications stated in the order below. Plaintiff is ordered to produce a code-compliant response and a privilege log within 15 days.

Defendant Garcia’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff is denied.

Plaintiff Carla Barboza (“Barboza”) (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant Henry Garcia (“Garcia”) (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”) Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. (Notice of Motion RFP Barboza, pg. 1; C.C.P. §2031.300(b).)

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant Garcia to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (“RFA”) Nos. 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17, and Form Interrogatory (“FROG”) 17.1.[1] (Notice of Motion RFA, pg. 1; C.C.P. §2033.290(a)(2).)

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant Garcia to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (“SROG”) Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 22, and 23. (Notice of Motion SROG, pg. 1; C.C.P. §2030.300(a)(3).)

Defendant Garcia moves to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to Defendant Garcia’s RFP (Set One). (Notice of Motion RFP Garcia, pg. 2; C.C.P. §2031.310.) Defendant Garcia further requests sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $5,846.65 on the basis that Plaintiff has made unmeritorious objections to discovery. (Notice of Motion RFP Garcia, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.010(d), (e), (i), 2023.020, 2023.030.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel Defendant Garcia’s further responses on March 3, 2023. Defendant Garcia filed his oppositions on April 25, 2023. Plaintiff filed her omnibus reply on May 1, 2023.

Defendant Garcia filed his motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses on September 30, 2022. Plaintiff filed her opposition on April 25, 2023. Defendant Garcia filed his reply on May 8, 2023.

Motions to compel further responses must always be accompanied by meet-and confer-declarations per C.C.P. §2016.040 demonstrating a “reasonable and good faith attempt an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (C.C.P. §§2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b)(2), 2033.290(b)(1).)

Plaintiff’s counsel declares she sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant Garcia’s counsel on January 23, 2023, regarding the instant motions. (Decls. of Rodriguez ¶14; P-COE Exhs. 13, 14.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares the parties were unable to informally resolve the disputes presented by her motions. (See Decls. of Rodriguez ¶¶19-20.)

Defendant Garcia’s counsel declares he sent Plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter on April 27, 2022. (Decl. of Weerasuriya ¶13, Exh. E.) Defendant Garcia’s counsel declares parties were unable to meet and confer because Plaintiff’s counsel did not follow up with him after receiving his meet and confer letter. (Decl. of Weerasuriya ¶¶14-16.)

These RFPs request Defendant Garcia produce: (1) Copies of any and all financials reflecting the unpermitted work done at Plaintiff’s property shared with Defendant Garcia by Defendant Devall; (2) Copies of any and all invoices reflecting the unpermitted work done at Plaintiff’s property shared with Defendant Garcia by Defendant Devall; (3) Copies of any and all spreadsheets reflecting the unpermitted work done at Plaintiff’s property shared with Defendant Garcia by Defendant Devall; (4) Copies of any and all construction documents reflecting the unpermitted work done at Plaintiff’s property shared with Defendant Garcia by Defendant Devall; (5) Copies of any and all documents related to Plaintiff that Defendant Devall shared with Defendant Garcia; (7) Documents reflecting work performed by Defendant Garcia, Defendant Devall, and Defendant H&E at 8674 Edwin Drive, Los Angeles, California in 2020 and 2021; and (8) Documents reflecting work performed by Defendant Garcia, Defendant Devall, and Defendant H&E at 1388 Lucile Avenue, Los Angeles, California in 2020. (See Barboza RFP SS, pgs. 1-6.)

In his initial responses, Defendant Garcia objected to these requests as: (1) not relevant to the subject matter of this case, or the Parties’ claims and defenses; (2) calls for information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the joint-defense privilege, and the work-product doctrine; (3) seeks documents equally available to Plaintiff; (4) unduly burdensome and vague and ambiguous; and (5) harassing. (See Barboza RFP SS, pgs. 1-6.)

Defendant Garcia argues in opposition that the information Plaintiff seeks about Defendant Garcia’s prior construction history is not relevant to the subject matter of this case because her pleading does not allege that Defendant Garcia or Defendant H&E had a pattern and practice of performing unlicensed or unpermitted work or that Defendant Garcia’s or Defendant H&E’s conduct relating to the construction of Plaintiff’s swimming pool was consistent with prior construction. (Opposition Barboza RFP, pg. 3.) Defendant Garcia argues Plaintiff only alleges on information and belief that similar unpermitted work was done at other residences, that such an allegation is vague and should not entitle Plaintiff to seek information on work Defendant H&E performed for non-parties because it invades the privacy rights of Defendant H&E who is not the party responding to the discovery sought and the privacy rights of non-parties. (Id.) However, Plaintiff’s requests are relevant to this case because Defendant Garcia’s responses to verified interrogatory responses admit that Defendant H&E and Defendant Devall performed unpermitted construction, including two pools, at 8674 Edwin Drive, Los Angeles, California 90046 (“Edwin Property”) and 1388 Lucile Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90026 (“Lucile Property”) in the same time frame when Defendants Devall and Garcia built an alleged unpermitted pool at Plaintiff’s residence. (Decl. of Rodriguez RFP ¶7; P-COE RFP Exh. 6 at RFA No. 12; Exh. 7 at RFA No. 12; Exh. 9 at FROG 17.1 re: RFA Nos. 12, 23, 24, and 26.) Further, Defendant Garcia’s declaration dated November 29, 2022, states: “Devall also shared with me, financials, invoices, as well as spreadsheets and construction documents reflecting the unpermitted work done at the Property.” (P-COE RFP Exh. 11 at ¶12.)

Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling further production for RFP Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. Defendant Garcia is ordered to produce a code-compliant response and privilege log within 15 days identifying with particularity any documents that are protectable interests, subject to attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, set forth the particular privilege invoked, and provide sufficient factual information for Plaintiff to evaluate the merits of that claim. (C.C.P. §2031.240.)

These RFAs seek the following admissions from Defendant Garcia: (12) Admit that you and Defendant Devall performed construction work for which you did not seek permits from the Los Angeles Department of Building & Safety in 2020; (13) Admit that Defendant H&E did not seek permits for any of the construction work it performed at 1388 Lucile Avenue, Los Angeles, California; (14) Admit that you did not seek permits for any of the construction work performed at 1388 Lucile Avenue, Los Angeles, California; (16) Admit that Defendant H&E did not pull permits for work it performed at 8674 Edwin Drive, Los Angeles, California; (17) Admit that you did not pull permits for work performed by Defendant H&E at 8674 Edwin Drive, Los Angeles, California. (See Barboza RFA SS, pgs. 1-4.)

In his initial responses, Defendant Garcia objected to these requests as: (1) unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, and harassing; and (2) not relevant to the subject matter of this case or the Parties’ claims and defenses. (See Barboza RFA SS, pgs. 1-4.)

Defendant Garcia presents the same arguments in opposition as in the motion pertaining to RFPs. As stated with regards to the abovementioned motion, Plaintiff’s requests are relevant to this case based on Defendant Garcia’s responses to verified interrogatory responses admitting that Defendant H&E and Defendant Devall performed unpermitted construction, including two pools, at the Edwin Property and the Lucile Property.

Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling admission to RFA Nos. 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17. Defendant Garcia is ordered to produce a code-compliant response within 15 days.

These interrogatories ask Defendant Garcia to identify: (1) the method by which Defendant Devall shared financials reflecting the unpermitted work done at Plaintiff’s property; (2) the financials reflecting the unpermitted work done at Plaintiff’s property shared with you by Defendant Devall; (3) the invoices reflecting the unpermitted work done at Plaintiff’s property shared with you by Defendant Devall; (4) the spreadsheets reflecting the unpermitted work done at Plaintiff’s property shared with you by Defendant Devall; (5) the date(s) on which Defendant Devall shared with you financials reflecting the unpermitted work done at Plaintiff’s property; (6) the date(s) on which Defendant Devall shared with you invoices reflecting the unpermitted work done at Plaintiff’s property; (7) the date(s) on which Defendant Devall shared with you spreadsheets reflecting the unpermitted work done at Plaintiff’s property; (8) any persons with whom you shared any information related to Plaintiff provided to you by Defendant Devall; (22) describe all unpermitted work performed at 8674 Edwin Drive, Los Angeles, California by you and Defendant H&E in 2020 and 2021; (23) describe all unpermitted work performed at 1388 Lucile Avenue, Los Angeles, California by you and Defendant H&E in 2020. (See Barboza SROG SS, pgs. 1-8.)

In his initial response, Defendant Garcia objected to answering these interrogatories as: (1) not relevant to the subject matter of this case or the Parties’ claims and defenses; (2) vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible; (3) violates the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the joint-defense privilege, and the privacy rights of the responding party and third parties; and (4) harassing. (See Barboza SROG SS, pgs. 1-9.)

Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling further production for SROG Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 22, and 23. Defendant Garcia is ordered to produce a code-compliant response and privilege log within 15 days identifying with particularity any documents that are protectable interests, subject to attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, set forth the particular privilege invoked, and provide sufficient factual information for Plaintiff to evaluate the merits of that claim. (C.C.P. §2031.240.)

These RFPs request Plaintiff produce: (14) all documents reflecting communications between Plaintiff and any person regarding construction by Livan Cartaya [the alleged “former contractor’] at Plaintiff’s Property before the Project; (15) documents reflecting construction by Livan Cartaya at Plaintiff’s property before the Project; (18) permits pulled by Mr. Cartaya for construction at Plaintiff’s property; (35 and 36) documents reflecting Plaintiff’s efforts to inspect the pool construction project before and after its completion. (See Motion Garcia RFP, pgs. 5-6.)

In her initial responses, Plaintiff objected to these requests as: (1) vague, ambiguous, harassing, vexatious, unduly burdensome and therefore overbroad; (2) seeks information protected by privacy rights of the responding party or a third party; (3) seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege and/or attorney-work product privilege, including without limitation information concerning correspondence between counsel and client and information concerning memoranda prepared by counsel, or at counsel’s instructions for use in this litigation, counsel’s opinions, legal theories, and strategic reasoning. (See Decl. of Weerasuriya, Exh. D at pgs. 12, 15, 27-29.)

Plaintiff argues in opposition that RFP Nos. 14, 15, and 18 focus on work unrelated to the swimming pool, which this Court has previously ruled is not relevant to the subject matter and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and lack time constraints. Plaintiff argues in opposition that RFP Nos. 35 and 36 are vague and ambiguous because Defendant Garcia never finished the pool project, so it is impossible to speculate what, as requested, Defendant Garcia’s requests seek. (Opposition Garcia RFP, pg. 6.) Defendant Garcia is entitled to discovery concerning Plaintiff’s prior construction history because it is relevant to Plaintiff’s allegations in her pleading, Defendant Garcia’s affirmative defenses, and claims on the cross-complaint. Defendant Garcia is further entitled to discovery concerning Plaintiff’s efforts to inspect the pool construction project. The Court agrees RFP Nos. 35 and 36 are ambiguous as to the period in which the pool was determined to be “complete.” The Court instructs Plaintiff to provide responses to Defendant Garcia’s requests regarding Plaintiff’s inspections prior to the pool’s demolition.

Defendant Garcia is entitled to an order compelling further production for RFP Nos. 14, 15, 18, 35, and 36, as modified by the Court. Plaintiff is ordered to produce a code-compliant response and privilege log within 15 days identifying with particularity any documents that are protectable interests, subject to attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, set forth the particular privilege invoked, and provide sufficient factual information for Defendant Garcia to evaluate the merits of that claim. (C.C.P. §2031.240.)

The Court finds sanctions are not warranted in light of the ruling on the motion.

[1] Plaintiff includes FROG 17.1 in the notice of her motion but does not argue the issue of the interrogatory in her motion and does not include the interrogatory in her separate statement. Therefore, the Court disregards FROG 17.1 in Plaintiff’s motion.