Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV16376, Date: 2025-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV16376    Hearing Date: May 14, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On July 1, 2024, Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company filed this action against Defendants HM Construction, Inc., Hocine Merzouk, and Cherifa Merzouk.

            On April 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant four motions to compel each Defendant’s further responses to Form Interrogatories and Defendant HM Construction’s further responses to Requests for Admission. Defendants filed an omnibus opposition on April 30, 2025. Plaintiff filed its reply on May 7, 2025.

            A default has been entered against Defendant HM Construction, Inc.  As such, the motion concerning HM Construction is moot. 

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 Plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Buchanan Decl.)

DISCUSSION

I. The Motions are Timely

            A motion to compel further responses must be noticed within 45 days of service of the responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(c), 2033.290(c); Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) However, “[a]ny period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court days.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6(a)(3)(B).)

            Here, Defendants served their responses electronically on February 18, 2025. Forty-five days after February 18, 2025 is April 4, 2025. Adding two court days results in a deadline of April 8, 2025, which is the date Plaintiff filed the motions. Thus, the motions are timely.   

II. The Responses are Defective

            FROG No. 17.1 seeks specific information for each response to an RFA that is not an unqualified admission. Defendants responded by stating, “Please see responses to requests for admission.” This is improper. FROG No. 17.1 is a standard form interrogatory drafted by the Judicial Council. It is routine for litigants to provide the requested information about their RFAs. Defendants are required to respond to each discrete subpart. Merely referencing the RFAs is insufficient and does not constitute a complete response to the interrogatory. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a).)

III. Sanctions are Warranted

            Sanctions are warranted as Defendants provide no substantial justification for failing to provide proper responses to the basic discovery at issue. Plaintiff’s counsel claims a reasonable hourly rate of $375. (See Buchanan Decl. ¶ 13.) Given the simplicity and duplicative nature of the motions, the Court reduces the time incurred to 6 hours total. Plaintiff also incurred $240 in filing fees. (Id., ¶ 16.) Thus, the Court awards a total of $2,490.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motions to compel further response are GRANTED. Defendants shall provide further response to the subject discovery within 20 days of this order. The Court sanctions Defendants and their counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,490, to be paid within 30 days of this order.