Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV03446, Date: 2024-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 23CHCV03446    Hearing Date: June 12, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed: 5/1/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Michael R. Rhames (“Rhames” or “Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Cyrus Jazaeri (“Jazaeri” or “Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court compelling Plaintiff to provide further verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s first set of Special Interrogatories, and imposing monetary sanctions in the amount of $685.00 against Plaintiff.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed his form Complaint against Defendant and Does 1 to 20, alleging: (1) breach of contract, and (2) legal malpractice, to which Defendant subsequently filed his demurrer on January 8, 2024.

On May 1, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (the “Motion”).

On May 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Opposition to the Motion. On the same day, Plaintiff filed his operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), rendering Defendant’s demurrer moot. The FAC alleges the following causes of action: (1) professional negligence, (2) breach of contract, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, and (4) fraud and deceit.

Subsequently, Defendant filed his Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition on June 5, 2024.

ANALYSIS

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

A.    Procedural Requirements

1.      45-Day Rule

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (c), notice of this motion must be given within 45 days following the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or by a later date agreed-upon in writing, failing which the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).)

Here, Plaintiff served the initial responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, on March 25, 2023. (Niedbalski Decl., ¶ 4.) This establishes the deadline for Defendant to file a motion to compel further responses as May 9, 2024. Defendant filed the instant Motion on May 1, 2024, thus meeting the established deadline.

Therefore, the Court finds the Motion to be timely.

2.      Meet and Confer

“A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).)

Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 sets forth, “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”

Here, Defendant sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter on February 27, 2024, after Plaintiff had failed to provide any responses, which were due on February 9, 2024. (Niedbalski Decl., ¶ 4.) Subsequently, Defendant sent Plaintiff another meet and confer letter on April 2, 2024, addressing issues raised in the instant Motion concerning Plaintiff’s initial response to the first set of Special Interrogatories served on March 25, 2024. (Id., ¶ 7.) Despite these efforts, Plaintiff has not served verified, code-compliant responses as of the filing of the Motion. (Id., ¶ 8.)

Therefore, the Court determines that the meet and confer requirements have been satisfied.

3.      Separate Statement

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be accompanied by a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(3).) “A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)

Defendant has met the above requirement by filing a separate statement explaining the interrogatories at issue, Plaintiff’s responses, and why further responses are necessary.

B.     Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to provide supplemental code-compliant responses, without objection, to Special Interrogatories, Nos. 4, 6-12. (See generally Def.’s Separate Statement.) Defendant claims that Plaintiff’s initial responses were also unverified. (Mot., at p. 4, Niedbalski Decl., ¶ 6.)

Moreover, Defendant asserts that the information sought in the Special Interrogatories, Set One concerns Plaintiff’s contention in the action, arguing that Plaintiff’s two-page form Complaint was completely devoid of facts. (Mot., at p. 5, Reply, at p. 2.)

In his Opposition, Plaintiff states that he has filed a FAC along with an email on May 9, 2024, which referenced the outstanding discovery responses, stating, in part, “In regard to the outstanding discovery, we apologize for the delay but were only able to find someone to assist us recently who, at present, is working on the answers and the further answers which we intend to provide before your first motion on May 30th. After you receive our responses (which will be without objections), please contact us as to whether or not you intend to proceed on the Motions.” (Jazaeri Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. “2.”)

In Reply, Defendant maintains that although Plaintiff’s May 9, 2024, letter indicated that supplemental responses would be provided before May 30, 2024, no such amended responses have been received from Plaintiff.

Based on the above records, the Court finds that Plaintiff agreed to, but has failed to provide, supplemental responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One. The Court notes that Plaintiff does not make any substantive argument concerning the purported deficiency of his initial responses as raised in the Motion.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the instant Motion.

C.    Monetary Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d) provides, “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.”

Given that the Court has granted the Defendant’s Motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), it determines that the mandatory sanction is applicable in this case.

Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the instant Motion is $310.00, calculated at $250.00 per hour for one hour, in addition to a cost of $60 for filing fees.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve and file verified supplemental responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 30 days.

Defendant’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff is ordered to pay $310.00 to Defendant within 30 days.

Moving party to give notice.