Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV06861, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06861    Hearing Date: February 24, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On March 29, 2023, Plaintiff Margarita Isais de Rodriguez initiated this action against Defendants Utopia Management, Inc. and Rochelle Kiner. The operative First Amended Complaint was filed on July 17, 2023. The FAC asserts causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) breach of the warranty of habitability; (3) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (4) private nuisance; (5) unfair business practices; (6) conversion; and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress. The action stems from alleged habitability issues which culminated in an electrical fire that destroyed the premises and Plaintiff’s personal belongings.

            On January 3 and 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant five motions to compel further responses from Defendant Utopia Management, Inc. as to interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission. Defendant filed its oppositions on February 7, 2025. Plaintiff filed her replies on February 13, 2025.

            Although one of the motions (CRS# 9971) is scheduled for February 26, 2025, all five motions concern identical issues. The motion CRS# 9971 is therefore advanced and heard on this date.[1]  

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

            The discovery requests at issue were initially served on September 5, 2024. (Hoffman Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant requested, and Plaintiff granted, multiple extensions for Defendant’s responses. (Id., ¶¶ 3-6.) Defendant served objection-only responses as a precaution on December 6, 2024, though the parties continued to agree on extensions for Defendant to provide substantive responses. (Id., ¶¶ 7-10; Travis Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff granted a final extension to December 31, 2024. (Hoffman Decl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff’s counsel avers that no responses were received by December 31, 2024. (Id., ¶ 12.) Therefore, Plaintiff filed the instant motions based on Defendant’s objection-only responses served on December 6, 2024.

            Defendant’s counsel avers that they produced supplemental responses on December 31, 2024 as agreed. (Travis Decl. ¶ 3.) After Plaintiff’s counsel stated that she did not receive the responses, Defendant’s counsel re-sent them on January 3, 2025. (Id., ¶ 5.) After these motions were filed, the parties continued conferring on the responses. (Smyth Decl. ¶¶ 3-7.) Plaintiff’s counsel denied receiving the responses, and Defendant’s counsel re-sent them again on January 28, 2025. (Ibid.) After further meet and confer, Defendant agreed to provide the original service emails from December 31, 2024, but as of February 4, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel denied receiving these emails. (Id., ¶¶ 17-18.)

            Plaintiff’s counsel maintains that they did not receive any correspondence from defense counsel Travis past December 30, 2024. (Hoffman Reply Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel further avers that Defendant made no attempt to clarify any purported error or misunderstanding for three weeks after these motions were filed. (Id., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff’s counsel denies receiving any of the emails through which Defendant’s counsel claims to have served and re-served the discovery responses. (Id., ¶ 12.) Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledges receiving a PDF of the purported December 31, 2024 email but contends that it could have been easily fabricated using Microsoft Word. (Id., ¶ 16.) Plaintiff cites Defendant’s refusal to provide solid proof of the original service email as the reason for maintaining these motions. (Id., ¶¶ 21-22.)     

            Plaintiff acknowledges receiving the subject responses at this point. Thus, the motion is moot. To the extent Plaintiff finds the responses to be deficient, Plaintiff should file a separate motion after the requisite meet and confer.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses are DENIED as moot. Sanctions are denied as the parties acted with substantial justification.