Judge David A. Rosen, Case 21GDCV00182 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 21GDCV00182, Date: 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21GDCV00182 Hearing Date: April 7, 2023 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 04/07/2023 – 10am
Case No: 21GDCV00182
Trial Date: 10/30/2023
Case Name: SERJIK ALEHVERDIAN, et al. v. PALM DELUXE PARTNERS LP

2 -TENTATIVE RULINGS ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

MOTION 1

Moving Party: Plaintiffs
Responding Party: No Opposition submitted

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok
Proper Address: Ok

Moving Papers: Motion; Separate Statement; Robinson Declaration; Supplemental Robinson Declaration

Opposition Papers: No Opposition

Reply Papers: No Reply Submitted

RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order compelling Defendant, Anupam Patel, to serve further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1-4, 8, 11-15, 17, 18. Plaintiffs move under CCP §2030.300.

Plaintiffs request monetary sanctions against Defendant Anupam Patel and counsel, Adli Law Group, P.C., and in favor of Plaintiffs in the sum of $1,653.75 pursuant to CCP §2023.010 and 2030.300.

ANALYSIS
45-Day Requirement
“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (CCP §2030.300(c).)

Here, Defendant initially provided responses on February 16, 2022. It then appears as if the parties agreed to mediate the matter and discovery was stayed. When the parties finally agreed to continue moving forward with discovery, it appears as if the parties agreed that further responses would be due November 15, 2022, and the deadline to file a motion to compel would be November 30, 2022. The instant motion was not filed and served until January 10, 2023. Although at first glance this motion appears untimely, the supplemental verified responses were not served until November 23, 2022. CCP §2030.300(c) states that notice of the motion must be within 45 days of service of the verified responses, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing. Here, November 30, 2022 would not be a later date than the 45 day cutoff from when the verified supplemental responses were served on November 23, 2022. Based on CCP §1010.6(a)(3)(A)-(B), this motion appears timely because it was filed and served on January 10, 2023.

Meet and Confer
“A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP §2030.300(b)(1).)

Here, the meet and confer requirement was met. (Decl. Robinson ¶16.)

LEGAL STANDARD - COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(CCP §2030.300(a).

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the¿burden is on the responding party¿to justify any objection or failure fully to answer.¿(Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also¿Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Furthermore, to the extent there is any doubt in whether these records should be discoverable, California’s liberal approach to discovery provides that doubt should be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173.)

The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following:

(1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered.

(2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings.

(3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.

(CCP §2030.210(a).)

DISCUSSION
Unlike a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, the instant motion does not require good cause for further responses. Here, moving party found the responses to be evasive and incomplete and the objections inapplicable. If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the¿burden is on the responding party¿to justify any objection or failure fully to answer.¿(Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also¿Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted.

TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses from Defendant Anupam Patel for Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1-4, 8, 11-15, 17 and 18 is GRANTED. Defendant, Anupam Patel, is to provide further, verified, code compliant responses. Additionally, because of the extensive amount of law and motion activity arising from the discovery in this case, the Court is considering appointing a discovery referee for all further discovery disputes pursuant to CCP §639.

SANCTIONS
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP §2030.300(d).)

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a).)

Plaintiffs’ counsel requests sanctions in the amount of $1,653.75. This is based on an hourly rate of $375. This request is also based on: (1) Approximately 2 hours attempting to meet and confer with opposing counsel, researching, drafting, and preparing this motion and separate statements filed herewith; (2) 0.25 hour appearing for the hearing on this motion; (3) 2 hours drafting a reply, and (4) $60.00 for the filing fee.

Here, Defendant has not shown it acted with substantial justification or other circumstances that would make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

Since no Opposition existed and no Reply was submitted, the 2 hours requested drafting a reply is not appropriate.

Reasonable discovery Sanctions are GRANTED to Plaintiff in the amount of $903.75, which is based on 2.25 hours at a rate of $375/hour and for the $60.00 filing fee, against defendant and defendant’s counsel of record, jointly and severally. Sanctions to be paid within 30 days.

MOTION 2

Moving Party: Plaintiffs
Responding Party: No Opposition submitted

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok
Proper Address: Ok

Moving Papers: Motion; Separate Statement; Robinson Declaration; Supplemental Robinson Declaration

Opposition Papers: No Opposition

Reply Papers: No Reply Submitted

RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order compelling Defendant, Anupam Patel, to serve further responses to General Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 12.4, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 15.1, 16.1, 16.2, 16.6 – 16.9, and 50.1. Plaintiffs move pursuant to CCP §2030.300.

Plaintiffs request monetary sanctions against Defendant Anupam Patel and counsel, Adli Law Group, P.C., and in favor of Plaintiffs in the sum of $2,028.75 pursuant to CCP §2023.010 and 2030.300.

Meet and Confer
“A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP §2030.300(b)(1).)

Here, the meet and confer requirement was met. (Decl. Robinson ¶16.)

(4) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(5) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(6) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(CCP §2030.300(a).

The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following:

(1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered.

(2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings.

(3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.

(CCP §2030.210(a).)

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted.

TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses from Defendant Anupam Patel for General Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 12.4, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 15.1, 16.1, 16.2, 16.6 – 16.9, and 50.1 is GRANTED. Defendant, Anupam Patel, is to provide further, verified, code compliant responses. Additionally, because of the extensive amount of law and motion activity arising from the discovery in this case, the Court is considering appointing a discovery referee for all further discovery disputes pursuant to CCP §639.

Plaintiffs’ counsel requests sanctions in the amount of $2,028.75. This is based on an hourly rate of $375. This request is also based on: (1) Approximately 3 hours attempting to meet and confer with opposing counsel, researching, drafting, and preparing this motion and separate statements filed herewith; (2) 0.25 hour appearing for the hearing on this motion; (3) 2 hours drafting a reply, and (4) $60.00 for the filing fee.

Here, Defendant has not shown it acted with substantial justification or other circumstances that would make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

Since no Opposition was filed, no Reply was necessary, the 2 hours requested for drafting a reply is not appropriate.

Reasonable discovery sanctions are GRANTED to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,278.75, which is based on 3.25 hours at a rate of $375/hour and for the $60.00 filing fee, against defendant and defendant’s counsel of record, jointly and severally. Sanctions to be paid within 30 days.