Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV266639, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV266639    Hearing Date: December 8, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On August 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed this legal malpractice action against Defendants Bobby Babak Saadian and Wilshire Law Firm, PLC. Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on December 6, 2022, asserting causes of action for (1) legal malpractice, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) fraud.

            On November 8, 2023, Defendant Wilshire Law Firm filed the instant motions to compel further responses from Plaintiff as to Requests for Admission and the associated Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Upon receiving responses to its discovery requests, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the responses are incomplete or evasive, or objections are without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a), 2033.290(a).)

MEET AND CONFER

A motion to compel further must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to resolve the matter informally. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b), 2033.290(b).) The Court finds that Defendant has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Grassel Decl.)

DISCUSSION

I. Requests for Admission

There are three RFAs at issue. RFA No. 27 asks Plaintiff to admit that she took no action to investigate the alleged misconduct until July 2022. RFA No. 28 asks Plaintiff to admit that Plaintiff filed the complaint on August 17, 2022. RFA No. 33 asks Plaintiff to admit that she has no evidence that Defendant Saadian breached any duty owed to her.

            Plaintiff responded to each RFA with the following: “Objection. The request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. Subject to and without waiving said objection Plaintiff is unable to admit or deny based on the information currently available. Discovery and investigation continue.”

            Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. The requests are sufficiently clear and particularized to warrant a response. Plaintiff’s statement that she is unable to answer the RFA does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220(c). Therefore, further responses are required for RFA Nos. 27, 28, and 33.

II. Form Interrogatory No. 17.1

            Plaintiff asserted the same objection to FROG No. 17.1 as it pertains to RFA Nos. 20, 27, 28, and 33. The objection is without merit for the same reasons articulated above.

Therefore, a further response is required for FROG No. 17.1.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant Wilshire Law Firm’s motions to compel further responses are GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide further responses to the subject RFAs and FROGs within 15 days. Sanctions are in the amount of $1,870 (5 hours at $350 and $120 filing fee) awarded to Defendant and against Plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel.  Sanctions shall be paid within 30 days.  .