Judge David A. Rosen, Case 21GDCV00182 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 21GDCV00182, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21GDCV00182 Hearing Date: May 5, 2023 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 5/5/2023 – 10:00am
Case No: 21GDCV00182
Trial Date: 10/30/2023
Case Name: SERJIK ALEHVERDIAN, et al. v. PALM DELUXE PARTNERS LP

3 -TENTATIVE RULINGS ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

MOTION 1

On this Motion to compel further responses to the Requests for production as to Palm Deluxe LP [Motion 1], there is no separate statement. The only separate statement movant submitted is with respect to special interrogatories. While the proof of service for Motion 1 says there is a separate statement, there is not one in the Court’s [eCourt] file with respect to this party and this means of discovery.

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: Notice of Motion/Motion; Separate Statement for SROG; Robinson Declaration; Supplemental Declaration; Proposed Order; Kazandjian Declaration; Amended Proof of Service for January 10, 2023, documents; Amended Proof of Service for January 11, 2023 documents

Opposition Papers: No Opposition

Reply Papers: No Reply

RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order compelling Defendant PALM DELUXE PARTNERS, LP to serve further responses to all REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, Set One, Nos. 1-30, served on Defendant PALM DELUXE PARTNERS, LP on November 18, 2021. This motion is made pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, 2030.300, 2030.300(d), 2030.230, 2030.290, and 2030.290(a) on the grounds that the responding party has failed, without justification, to serve complete responses to these inspection demands.

Notice is additionally given that Plaintiff will request that the Court award monetary sanctions against Defendant PALM DELUXE PARTNERS, LP and counsel, ADLI LAW GROUP, P.C., and in favor of Plaintiffs in the sum of $1,747.50 pursuant to Civ. Proc. § 2023.010 et seq., and Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290.

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 demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand. (CCP §2031.310(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 §2031.310(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
“The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP §2031.310(b)(2).)

Moving party met and conferred. (See Robinson Decl. ¶16-19.)

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The Section specifically provides that “[d]iscovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery “may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”

CCP § 2031.310(a) provides that a party demanding a document inspection may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that:

“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

Under CCP § 2031.310 (b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”

The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)

TENTATIVE RULING-MOTION 1
There is no separate statement on file in eCourt for RPD for Palm Deluxe LP. The amended proof of service says the separate statement was served, but on eCourt there is no separate statement with respect to this discovery and this party.

Motions to compel further responses to interrogatories and motions to compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things require a separate statement. (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a)(2)-(3).)

Thus, this Motion is DENIED.

SANCTIONS
Except as provided in subdivision (j), 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 further response to a demand, 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 §2031.310(h).)

Plaintiffs requested that Defendant and its counsel be ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiffs in the sum of $1,747.50.

Plaintiffs’ sanctions request was based on the following: An hourly rate of $375; 2.25 hours attempting to meet and confer and confer with opposing counsel, researching, drafting, and preparing this motion and separate statement; 0.25 hours appearing for the hearing; 2 hours drafting any reply; and $60 for the filing fee.

Here, Plaintiffs’ sanctions request is DENIED, as this Motion is denied.

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: Notice of Motion/Motion; Separate Statement; Robinson Declaration; Supplemental Robinson Declaration; Kazandjian Declaration; Amended Proof of Service for January 10, 2023, documents; Amended Proof of Service for January 11, 2023 documents

Opposition Papers: No Opposition

Reply Papers: No Reply

RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order compelling Defendant PALM DELUXE PROPERTIES LLC 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, served on Defendant PALM DELUXE PROPERTIES LLC on November 18, 2021. This motion is made pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300 on the grounds that the responding party has failed, without justification, to serve complete and proper further responses to these interrogatories.

Notice is additionally given that Plaintiff will request that the Court award monetary sanctions against Defendant PALM DELUXE PROPERTIES LLC and counsel, ADLI LAW GROUP, P.C., and in favor of Plaintiffs in the sum of $2,028.75 pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010 et seq., and Code Civ. Proc. § 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 ¶16-19.)

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 of Contra Costa County (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 of Contra Costa Countyt (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.) Here, no Opposition was submitted.

TENTATIVE RULING-MOTION 2
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses from Defendant Palm Deluxe Properties LLC for 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, Palm Deluxe Properties LLC, is to provide further, verified, code compliant responses within 20 days.

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 requested that the Court award monetary sanctions against Defendant PALM DELUXE PROPERTIES LLC and counsel, ADLI LAW GROUP, P.C., and in favor of Plaintiffs in the sum of $2,028.75.

Plaintiffs based this request on: An hourly rate of $375; three hours attempting to meet and confer and confer with opposing counsel, researching, drafting, and preparing this motion and separate statement; 0.25 hours appearing for the hearing; 2 hours drafting any reply; and $60 for the filing fee.

The Court awards reasonable discovery sanctions in the amount of $950.00 to Plaintiff and against Defendant and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, to be paid on or before May 31, 2023.

MOTION 3

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: Notice of Motion/Motion; Separate Statement; Robinson Declaration; Supplemental Declaration; Proposed Order; Kazandjian Declaration; Amended Proof of Service for January 10, 2023, documents; Amended Proof of Service for January 11, 2023 documents

Opposition Papers: No Opposition

Reply Papers: No Reply

RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order compelling Defendant PALM DELUXE PROPERTIES LLC, to serve further responses to all REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, Set One, Nos. 1-30, served on Defendant PALM DELUXE PROPERTIES LLC, on November 18, 2021. This motion is made pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, 2030.300, 2030.300(d), 2030.230, 2030.290, and 2030.290(a) on the grounds that the responding party has failed, without justification, to serve complete responses to these inspection demands.

Notice is additionally given that Plaintiff will request that the Court award monetary sanctions against Defendant PALM DELUXE PROPERTIES LLC, and counsel, ADLI LAW GROUP, P.C., and in favor of Plaintiffs in the sum of $1,747.50 pursuant to Civ. Proc. § 2023.010 et seq., and Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290.

Same Analysis as Motion 1.

Meet and Confer
“The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP §2031.310(b)(2).)

Same as Motion 1.

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

CCP § 2031.310(a) provides that a party demanding a document inspection may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that:

“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

Under CCP § 2031.310 (b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”

DISCUSSION/TENTATIVE RULINGS-MOTION 3

RPD Nos. 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, Tentative Ruling

Motion to compel further responses to requests numbers 1-5, 7, 9,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 is GRANTED. Although the amended response states that the responding party has no responsive documents, responding party did not comply with what CCP §2031.230 required of responding party.

RPD No. 6 Tentative Ruling

The amended response to this request stood on the objections to the initial response and also referred to documents with Bates numbers. However, responding party’s response is not code compliant with CCP §2031.240 nor is it compliant with CCP §2031.220. Motion to compel further responses to request number 6 is GRANTED.

RPD 8 Tentative Ruling

Motion to compel further responses to request number 8 is DENIED.

RPD 18, 19, 20, 21, 28 Tentative Ruling

Motion to compel further responses to requests 18, 19, 20, 21 and 28 is DENIED. Plaintiffs did not show good cause for the requests. See CCP §2031.310(b)(1).

RPD 29 Tentative Ruling

Motion to compel further responses to request number 29 is GRANTED. Responding party’s response is not code compliant.

RPD 30 Tentative Ruling

Motion denied. While Defendant’s further responses are to be code-compliant, this Request is an instruction to that effect, not a separate request.

N.B.: All further responses compelled hereunder are to be code-compliant, under oath, and within 20 days.

Plaintiffs requested that Defendant and its counsel be ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiffs in the sum of $1,747.50.

Here, Plaintiffs’ sanctions request is DENIED. The Court finds the imposition of a sanction would be unjust here considering the fact that the Court denied several of the instant requests.