Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 25STCV07758, Date: 2025-06-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV07758    Hearing Date: June 18, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On March 17, 2025, Plaintiff Russell & Lazarus, APC filed this complaint-in-interpleader against Defendant Williams & Seemen, APLC. The complaint asserts causes of action for (1) interpleader and (2) declaratory relief.

The dispute is over the proper distribution of attorney’s fees recovered in an underlying personal injury case. Defendant initially represented the plaintiff, Onique Bohanan, in the underlying case. Plaintiff subsequently substituted in as Ms. Bohanan’s counsel. The case then settled, and Defendant demanded one-third of the attorney’s fees recovered as compensation for their contribution. Plaintiff contends that Defendant is not entitled to any attorney’s fees due to its inadequate representation of Ms. Bohanan.

On May 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant four motions to compel further responses to its special interrogatories, form interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission. Defendant filed its opposition on June 9, 2025. Plaintiff filed its reply on June 11, 2025.

The motion to compel requests for admission (CRS# 3642), originally scheduled for June 20, 2025, is advanced and heard on this date.

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

            Defendant argues that service of the requests was improper because they were emailed to Defendant before Defendant appeared in the case or consented to electronic service. (See Plntf.’s Ex. 1.) However, Defendant timely responded to each request, thus waiving the service issue. Plaintiff was entitled to file motions to compel “[o]n receipt” of the responses. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a), 2033.290(a).)  

            Defendant otherwise fails to address the substantive defects with its responses. Therefore, further responses are warranted.   

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses are GRANTED. Defendant shall provide further responses to the subject discovery within 20 days of this order. Sanctions are denied as the parties acted with substantial justification.