Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 21GDCV01288, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21GDCV01288 Hearing Date: March 24, 2023 Dept: E
Hearing Date: March
24, 2023
Case No: 21GDCV01288
Trial Date: June 12, 2023
Case Name: GPR
Properties, LLC v. Shiraz Rental, Inc., et al.
TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Moving
Party: Plaintiff, GPR
Properties
Responding
Party: Defendants, Shiraz Rental,
Inc., Goorgen Mirzakhanian, and Soren Shabazian
Proof of service timely filed
(CRC 317(b)): ok
Correct Address (CCP §§
1013, 1013(a)): ok
16/+5-day lapse (CCP
§1005): ok
RELIEF REQUESTED:
1.
An order to compel Defendant Shiraz Rental to provide
amended responses to the Requests for Production, Set 4.
2.
An order imposing monetary sanctions against Defendant
Shiraz Rental and its counsel of record in the amount of $1,410.00 for Requests
for Production.
3.
An order to compel Defendant Shiraz Rental to provide
amended responses to Special Interrogatories, Set 3.
4.
An order imposing monetary sanctions against Defendant
Shiraz Rental and its counsel of record in the amount of $1,410.00 for Special
Interrogatories.
BACKGROUND:
On October 14, 2021, Plaintiff GPR
Properties, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Shiraz Rental, Inc.,
Goorgen Mirzakhanian, and Soren Shabazian (collectively, “Defendants”) for
damages stemming from the lease of a storage space.
Plaintiff filed this action,
alleging (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing; (3) services rendered; (4) breach of implied-in-fact
contract; (5) negligence; and (6) trespass.
On February 28, 2023, Plaintiff
filed these motions to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for
Production (Set Four) and Special Interrogatories (Set Four). On March 13,
2023, Defendants filed a joint opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel
Further. On March 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply.
The motions to compel further
against Defendant Shiraz Rental are scheduled to be heard on March 24, 2023,
against Defendant Mirzakhanian on April 14, 2023, and against Defendant
Shabazian on April 21, 2023.
ANALYSIS:
Legal Standard
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 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.
A written
response to each request must include either (1) a proper objection, (2) a
statement that defendant will comply with the particular demand, or (3) a
statement of inability to comply, which shall specify whether any inability to
comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been
destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no
longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party, and
which sets forth the name and address of any natural person or organization
known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that
item or category of item. (CCP § 2031.210(a).)
To the extent there remain any
documents being withheld on the basis of an objection based on trade secret,
attorney-client privilege, or work product privilege, a privilege log must be
served. Responses shall otherwise be made without
objection.
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.)
Special Interrogatories
CCP § 2030.300(a) provides that if
the party propounding interrogatories deems that an objection “is without merit
or too general” or that “an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or
incomplete,” the propounding party may move for an order compelling a
further response.
CCP § 2030.210(a) provides, in
pertinent part: “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 § 2030.220 states: “(a) Each
answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and
straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party
permits. (b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall
be answered to the extent possible. (c) If the responding party does not
have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that
party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain
the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except
where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”
If a timely motion to compel further
responses to interrogatories has been filed, the burden is on the responding
party to justify any objection or failure to fully respond to discovery. (Coy
v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.) The granting or
denial of a motion to compel is in the discretion of the trial court. (Id.
at 221-222.) A court should generally consider the following factors: (1)
The relationship of the information sought to the issues framed in the
pleadings; (2) the likelihood that disclosure will be of practical benefit
to the party seeking discovery; and (3) the burden or expense likely to be
encountered by the responding party in furnishing the information sought. (Columbia
Broadcast System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.)
Discussion
On January
5, 2023, Plaintiff served Requests for Production, Set Four, and Special
Interrogatories, Set Three, on Shiraz Rental. (Both Levine Decl. Ex. A.) On
February 3, 2023, Defendant Shiraz Rental served responses. (Both Levine Decl.
Ex. B.)
Plaintiff
moves to compel further responses, on the grounds that the requests are evasive
and incomplete, and the objections are without merit and too general.
Timeliness
Defendants
argue that this motion is untimely because the discovery cut-off passed before
Plaintiff sought a trial continuance. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff
failed to request an order reopening discovery so that these motions could be
filed.
Pursuant to
CCP 2024.020(a), “any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete
discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning
discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for
the trial of the action.”
The initial
trial date was March 6, 2023. (03/28/22 Minute Order.) Thus, discovery
proceedings closed on February 4, 2023. On February 22, 2023, the Court granted
Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and Advance the Hearing Dates
for the Motions to Compel Further. (See 02/22/23 Minute Order.)
A party who
notices a discovery motion to be heard after the discovery motion cutoff date
does not have a right to have the motion heard, but the fact that a party does
not have a right to have a discovery motion heard does not mean the court has
no power to hear it, or that the court errs in hearing it. (Pelton-Shepherd
Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165
Cal.App.4th 1568, 1586-1587.)
In fact, a court may grant leave to
have a discovery motion heard after the discovery motion cutoff date. CCP
2024.050. Here, the court granted
Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue the trial date and advance the
dates for the hearings on the motions to compel, so that the motions to compel
further could be heard at least 120 days before the continued trial date. (See
Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application p. 2:25-28.) Thus, in granting the
application to continue trial and advance the discovery hearings, the court considered
the factors listed in CCP 2024.050(b), and properly exercised its discretion to
set the motions concerning discovery for hearing.
Meet and
Confer
Defendants
argue that Plaintiff’s meet and confer was insufficient.
Plaintiff’s counsel submits a
declaration stating that, on February 14, 2023, he sent a letter to Defense
counsel to initiate the meet and confer process. In the letter, he asked for a confirmation
no later than February 17, 2023. Defense counsel failed to respond. (Levine
Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C.)
This is sufficient to satisfy the
meet-and-confer requirement. Defendants cite to no authority supporting their
argument that a letter is insufficient to show good faith effort.
Requests for Production
Plaintiff
requests further responses to Requests Nos. 35-40. These discovery requests ask
Defendant to produce notices concerning the subject lease and correspondences
between Defendant and Plaintiff concerning Defendant’s inability to access the
leased premises.
Defendant responded to each of
these requests stating:
“Defendant objects to this Demand
on the grounds that it is impermissibly and overly vague, and ambiguous and
overbroad. Defendant further objects to this Demand on the grounds that it is
overly broad as to time and scope excessively vague and ambiguous. Defendant
further objects to this Demand on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and
oppressive. Defendant further objects to this Demand to the extent that it
seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney
work product doctrine. Defendant further objects to the Request based on the
grounds that the request seeks information that violates third parties’ right
to privacy, which Defendant may not waive. Further, Defendant objects on the
grounds that the documents are equally available, and therefore overly
burdensome, and would be in the possession of Respondent.”
This general response made to every discovery Request
is not code-complaint and the objections are clearly boilerplate.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs do
not set forth specific facts justifying the discovery sought. However, Plaintiff
states that Defendants’ primary defense is that they were unable to access the
premises, and this excuses their obligation to pay rent. Thus, this material
sought in these requests is relevant to this action to allow Plaintiff to
prepare for trial to understand the evidence in Defendant’s possession that is
relevant to its defense.
First, none of the responses are overly
broad or vague and ambiguous. (See Cembrook v. Sup.Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d
423, 428.) Second, Defendants put forward no facts showing how these requests
are excessive as to the time and scope. Third, to the extent that Defendants
object on the basis of attorney-client privilege, work product, or privacy
grounds, Defendant has not produced a privilege log. (See CCP §
2031.240.) Fourth, it is not clear that these documents are in Plaintiff’s
possession. The discovery request seeks evidence Defendant has of not being
able to access the premises. It is not clear that this evidence would already
be in Plaintiff’s possession.
Thus, the motion to compel further
responses to the Requests for Production is GRANTED.
Special
Interrogatories
Plaintiff
requests further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 17-34. These
discovery requests ask Defendant to identify any notices Defendant transmitted concerning
the subject leased premises. They also ask Plaintiff to identify any correspondences,
or documents that show that Defendant was unable to access the leased premises.
They ask Defendant to identify who was prevented from accessing the premises, why
they were prevented, and what Defendant did to try to remedy the obstructions
to the premises. They also ask Defendant specific questions about the A/C unit,
wall, and canine daycare that prevented Defendant from entering the premises.
Defendant responded to each of
these requests stating:
Defendant objects to this
Interrogatory on the grounds that the Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly
burdensome. The Defendant further objects on the grounds that the Interrogatory
seeks information and/or documents not relevant to any claim or defense in the
pending action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence in this action. Defendant further objects that this Interrogatory
contains subparts or a compound, conjunctive or disjunctive question in
violation of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.060(f).
This general response made to every
discovery Request is not code-complaint and the objections are clearly boilerplate.
Defendants are claiming that the issue with
accessing the premises excuses their obligation to pay rent. Thus, this
material sought in these requests is relevant to this action.
The burden
is on Defendant to justify the objections. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962)
58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.) Defendant does not meet this burden. None of the requests
are overly broad or vague and ambiguous so that Defendant is incapable of comprehending
the question and rendering a response. (See Cembrook v. Sup.Ct. (1961)
56 Cal.2d 423, 428.) Further, the questions are not compound or conjunctive. (See
CCP § 2030.060(f).)
Thus, the motion to compel further
responses to the Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.
Sanctions
Plaintiff
requests sanctions in the amount of $1,410.00 for each motion. This amount
consists of 3 hours at $450.00 per hour, and $60 filing fee.
The court “shall
impose a monetary sanction...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); CCP § 2031.310(h).)
Under the
circumstances and timing of this Motion, the Court exercises its discretion and
finds that it would be unjust to impose sanctions against Defendant as to this
Motion.
Defendants
argue that sanctions should not be imposed, and seek sanctions from Plaintiff,
because Plaintiff served these discovery requests on the last day before the
discovery cut-off. However, these reasons do not provide substantial
justification for Defendants to provide only boilerplate response to valid
discovery requests.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests
for Production, Set Four, and Special Interrogatories, Set Three is GRANTED.
Defendant Shiraz Rental Inc. is ordered to provide complete,
code-compliant, and verified responses to Requests for Production Nos. 35-40
and Special Interrogatories Nos. 17-34. The Court has considered the asserted
objections and finds they are without merit, so further responses are to be
served without objections.
Further responses are to be served in twenty days.
Monetary sanctions are not awarded to either party.