Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV02596, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02596    Hearing Date: February 24, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff PFN Distribution, Inc. filed this action against 40S and Shorties, LLC (40S), Adem Niazi (Niazi), Ryan De La Cruz (Cruz), and Andrew Kim aka “Drew Byrd” (Kim). Plaintiff filed the operative Third Amended Complaint on January 30, 2024.

            On January 21 and 23, 2025, Defendants filed the instant three motions to compel further responses from Plaintiff as to Requests for Production, Sets 1-3. Plaintiff filed its oppositions on February 7, 2025. Defendants filed their replies on February 14, 2025.

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).)

DISCUSSION

I. Procedural Issues

a. Reassignment Order

Plaintiff argues that the motions are procedurally improper because the court’s reassignment order stated that all matters in the case were advanced and vacated, to be rescheduled in the new department. Plaintiff argues that Defendant violated the order by filing brand new motions instead of waiting for the court to reschedule the existing motions. Plaintiff contends that the new motions were filed past the agreed-upon deadline and the discovery cutoff.

            However, Defendant’s refiling of the motions constitutes the rescheduling contemplated in the reassignment order. The motions do not violate the 45-day deadline (or agreed-upon extension), or the discovery cutoff, because Defendant rescheduled existing motions rather than filing entirely new motions. Thus, the motions are timely and do not violate the reassignment order.

            b. Meet and Confer

            On a January 3, 2025 phone call, defense counsel purportedly stated that they were prepared to proceed to trial with existing evidence, which Plaintiff’s counsel interpreted as terminating the meet and confer as to Plaintiff’s responses to the subject requests. (Alfera Decl. ¶¶ 2-13.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant filed the instant motions without further meeting and conferring. (Id., ¶ 14.)

However, as discussed above, this a rescheduling of existing motions. Defendant was not required to meet and confer a second time regarding the same discovery. Nonetheless, Defendant sent meet and confer correspondence in November 2024 and conferred or attempted to confer with Plaintiff on various dates prior to January 3, 2025. (Atabek Decl. ¶¶ 6-10.) Thus, the Court finds that Defendant has satisfied the meet and confer requirement.  

c. Notice of Advanced Hearing

Plaintiff argues that the motions should be denied or at least continued because Defendants failed to timely notice Plaintiff of the advanced hearing date for four of the six motions. However, the rules of Department 32 require all motions concerning the same matter to be heard on the same date if possible. The six motions at issue all concern the same matter, and Plaintiff’s arguments in opposition to each motion are identical. Defendant provided notice of the advanced hearing date within a reasonable time, and the hearings have been scheduled in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) and department rules.   

II. Substantive Issues

            The party seeking production of documents bears the initial burden of showing good cause through a fact-specific showing of relevance. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections. (Ibid.)  

            Defendant’s motion sets forth good cause for the requested documents. Plaintiff offers no argument regarding the substance of its responses to the subject RFPs. Thus, further responses are warranted. 

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motions to compel further responses are GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide further responses to RFP Sets One through Three within 20 days of this order.

BACKGROUND

            On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff PFN
Distribution, Inc. filed this action against 40S and Shorties, LLC (40S), Adem
Niazi (Niazi), Ryan De La Cruz (Cruz), and Andrew Kim aka “Drew Byrd” (Kim).
Plaintiff filed the operative Third Amended Complaint on January 30, 2024.

            On January 21 and 23, 2025,
Defendants filed the instant three motions to compel further responses from
Plaintiff as to Special Interrogatories, Sets 1-3. Plaintiff filed its
oppositions on February 7, 2025. Defendants filed their replies on February 14,
2025.

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).)

DISCUSSION

I.
Procedural Issues

a. Reassignment Order

Plaintiff argues that the motions are
procedurally improper because the court’s reassignment order stated that all
matters in the case were advanced and vacated, to be rescheduled in the new
department. Plaintiff argues that Defendant violated the order by filing brand
new motions instead of waiting for the court to reschedule the existing
motions. Plaintiff contends that the new motions were filed past the
agreed-upon deadline and the discovery cutoff.

            However, Defendant’s refiling of the
motions constitutes the rescheduling contemplated in the reassignment order.
The motions do not violate the 45-day deadline (or agreed-upon extension), or
the discovery cutoff, because Defendant rescheduled existing motions rather
than filing entirely new motions. Thus, the motions are timely and do not
violate the reassignment order.

            b. Meet and Confer

            On a January 3, 2025 phone call,
defense counsel purportedly stated that they were prepared to proceed to trial
with existing evidence, which Plaintiff’s counsel interpreted as terminating
the meet and confer as to Plaintiff’s responses to the subject interrogatories.
(Alfera Decl. ¶¶ 2-13.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant filed the instant
motions without further meeting and conferring. (Id., ¶ 14.)

However, as discussed above, this a
rescheduling of existing motions. Defendant was not required to meet and confer
a second time regarding the same discovery. Nonetheless, Defendant sent meet
and confer correspondence in November 2024 and conferred or attempted to confer
with Plaintiff on various dates prior to January 3, 2025. (Atabek Decl. ¶¶
6-10.) Thus, the Court finds that Defendant has satisfied the meet and confer
requirement.

c. Notice of Advanced Hearing

Plaintiff argues that the motions should
be denied or at least continued because Defendants failed to timely notice
Plaintiff of the advanced hearing date for four of the six motions. However,
the rules of Department 32 require all motions concerning the same matter to be
heard on the same date if possible. The six motions at issue all concern the
same matter, and Plaintiff’s arguments in opposition to each motion are
identical. Defendant provided notice of the advanced hearing date within a
reasonable time, and the hearings have been scheduled in compliance with Code
of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) and department rules.

d. Declaration of Additional Discovery

A responding party need only respond to
the first 35 special interrogatories unless the propounding party serves a
declaration justifying the additional discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2030.030(b), (c).)

Here, Defendant attached the requisite
declaration to its second set of special interrogatories, but not to the third
set. (See Atabek Decl., Ex. 2.) Thus, Plaintiff is required to respond to the
second set (SROG Nos. 70-107) but not the third set (SROG Nos. 108-116).

II.
Substantive Issues

            A party “is entitled to demand
answers to its interrogatories, as a matter of right . . . [and] the burden of
justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with
the party resisting an interrogatory.” (Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3
Cal.5th 531, 541.)

            Plaintiff offers no argument
regarding the substance of its responses to the subject interrogatories.
Defendant’s motion and separate statement demonstrate the defects in
Plaintiff’s responses, which are undisputed. Thus, further responses are
warranted. 

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motions to compel
further responses are GRANTED in part. Plaintiff shall provide further
responses to SROG Sets One and Two within 20 days of this order.