Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV00186, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00186    Hearing Date: March 29, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            This action was initiated on January 3, 2022 by 35 individual Plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief and damages for allegedly uninhabitable conditions in rental units maintained by Defendants. The Defendants each allegedly owned or managed the property at various times throughout Plaintiffs’ tenancy. The operative Second Amended Complaint was filed on November 30, 2022.

            On February 14, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant three motions to compel further responses to interrogatories and requests for production on the grounds that Defendant Mashcole Property Management, Inc.’s responses asserted boilerplate objections or were evasive.  

LEGAL STANDARD

 On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

On receipt of a response to a request for inspection, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to

comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

MEET AND CONFER

Motions to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to resolve the issue informally. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b)(2), 2033.290(b)(1).) The Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Grynberg Decl.)

DISCUSSION

            In its opposition, Defendant does not dispute the relevance of the requests or good cause for production. Rather, Defendant simply asserts that it has provided supplemental responses after the motion was filed. However, this does not provide substantial justification for Defendant’s failure to provide adequate responses in the first place. Indeed, Defendant does not dispute that sanctions are warranted. It only argues that the amount is excessive.

            Plaintiffs’ counsel claims to have spent 3 hours preparing each of the three motions, for a total of 9 hours. (Grynberg Decl. ¶¶ 15-17.) This is excessive given the simplicity of the issues and the substantial similarities between each motion. Plaintiffs’ counsel also claims an hourly rate of $500 without substantiation. (Id., ¶ 19.) The Court finds that the reasonable amount should be based on 4 hours at a rate of $350 per hour, plus $180 in filing fees. This amounts to $1,580.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motions to compel further responses is GRANTED. Defendant Mashcole is to pay sanctions of $1,580 within 30 days.