Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV05663, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05663    Hearing Date: October 26, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On February 15, 2022, Plaintiff Jorge Luis Ramos filed this legal malpractice action against Defendants Bradley S. Wallace, Alon M. Aliav, The Wallce Firm, PC, Elie I. Aghabi, Douglas C. Pease, Gregory Mohrman, Meghry Garabedian, and Aghabi Law, APC. The operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint filed April 27, 2022. The FAC asserts two causes of action for (1) negligence and (2) breach of fiduciary duty.

            Defendants represented Plaintiff in a personal injury action. (FAC ¶ 7.) Defendants allegedly failed to disclose a Section 998 offer, and Plaintiff lost at trial. (Id., ¶¶ 7-8.) Defendants allegedly failed to inform Plaintiff of his appellate rights. (Id., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff requested his files from Defendants in order to defend a subsequent subrogation action, but Defendants allegedly refused to produce hard copies. (Id., ¶¶ 9-10.) From the files that he obtained, Plaintiff discovered the Section 998 offer and a draft Notice of Appeal that was never filed. (Id., ¶ 11.)

            On August 19, 2022, Defendant The Wallace Firm, PC filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 12.

LEGAL STANDARD

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the party deems that: (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; or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a).)

MEET AND CONFER

Motions to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(b)(1).) The Court finds that Defendant has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Scott Decl. ¶¶ 4-10.)

DISCUSSION

            The two SROGs at issue ask Plaintiff to identify the damages Plaintiff sustained as a result of Defendants’ conduct. The requests define “Identify” to mean “state with specificity the type of damage allegedly sustained and the corresponding dollar value of each alleged item.” Plaintiff’s identical response to both SROGs reiterated Defendants’ purported breach of duty and listed the types of damages that Plaintiff purportedly suffered. This is incomplete, as the SROGs clearly ask for specific dollar amounts.

            Plaintiff did not object to the SROGs and never attempts to explain why he did not provide specific dollar amounts. Instead, Plaintiff argues that the motion is moot because he has served supplemental responses. However, service of supplemental responses does not moot a motion to compel. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408.) Sanctions are still warranted for Plaintiff’s failure to provide adequate responses in the first place, for which Plaintiff provides no substantial justification. Plaintiff’s supplemental responses also remain deficient because he responded to the wrong SROG and failed to state the dollar amounts.  

            Plaintiff also argues that it is unclear which SROGs are at issue, as prior meet and confer correspondence appears to have mistakenly referred to SROG No. 11 instead of No. 12. However, it is clear from the substance of the correspondence, the arguments made in the motion, and the separate statement that SROG No. 12 is the one at issue. A clerical error does not warrant denial of the motion or provide justification for Plaintiff’s deficient responses.

            Plaintiff’s arguments for why sanctions are unwarranted have already been rejected by the Court in a prior motion to compel, which was granted with sanctions. (See October 19, 2022 Order re Mtn. to Compel Further 3:9-24.)

            Given the simplicity of the motion, the reasonable amount of sanctions is 3 hours at $300 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee. (See Scott Decl. ¶¶ 11-12.)

CONCLUSION

            Defendant The Wallace Firm, PC’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to provide verified responses to SROG Nos. 10 and 12 within 10 days. Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff and his counsel in the amount of $960, to be paid within 30 days.