Judge Donald F. Gaffney, Case 8911SunsetLLCv.Ramirez 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: 8911SunsetLLCv.Ramirez, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1

Plaintiff 8911 Sunset LLC moves to compel Defendant Jeffrey Horne to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 17.1. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant Jeffrey Horne dba Diamond West Construction shall serve further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 within 30 days of service of notice of ruling.

A. Merits

Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 states: Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the number of the request; (b) state all facts upon which you base your response; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 2) states:

(a) 2

(b) Defendant Jose Ramirez has never been an employee or agent of Responding Party for any projects related to the PROPERTY. Defendant Ramirez has never been authorized by Responding Party to enter into any contracts on its behalf. Defendant Ramirez has ever [sic] been authorized to use Responding Party’s contractor’s license or letterhead. Contracts created by Responding Party name only Jeff Horne as the sole owner and agent of Responding Party. Jeff Horne is the only person authorized to enter into contracts on behalf of Responding Party.

(c) Plaintiff, Nathan Ganage, Defendant Jose Ramirez (d) January 28, 2020, rejected remediation bid at Apt 200 and November 19, 2020, contract with Nathan Ganage for installation of hardwood floors at Apt 200.

RFA No. 2 requests that Horne “Admit RAMIREZ was Diamond West Development’s agent with respect to construction at the PROPERTY.” Plaintiff correctly asserts that Horne’s response does not address whether Ramirez was Diamond West Development’s agent with respect to construction at Plaintiff’s Property. Additionally, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 2.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 3) states:

(a) 3

RFA No. 3 requests that Horne admit he “invoiced PLAINTIFF for work performed at the PROPERTY.” Plaintiff correctly asserts that Horne’s response does not address whether Horne invoiced Plaintiff for work performed at the Property. Additionally, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 3.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 4) states:

(a) 4

RFA No. 4 requests that Horne admit “Diamond West Development invoiced PLAINTIFF for work performed at the PROPERTY.” Plaintiff correctly asserts that Horne’s response does not address whether Diamond West Development invoiced Plaintiff for work performed at the Property. Additionally, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 4.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 5) states:

(a) 5

RFA No. 5 requests that Horne “Admit RAMIREZ was YOUR project manager for work performed at the PROPERTY.” Horne’s statement that “Jose Ramirez has never been an employee or agent of Responding Party for any projects related to the PROPERTY” addresses RFA No. 5. However, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 5.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 6) states:

(a) 6

RFA No. 6 requests that Horne “Admit RAMIREZ was Diamond West Development's project manager for work performed at the PROPERTY.” Plaintiff correctly asserts that Horne’s response does not address whether Ramirez was Diamond West Development’s project manager at the Property. Additionally, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 6.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 8) states:

(a) 8

RFA No. 8 requests that Horne “Admit RAMIREZ was authorized to enter agreements with PLAINTIFF on behalf of Diamond West Development.” Plaintiff correctly asserts that Horne’s response does not address whether Ramirez was authorized to enter into agreements with Plaintiff on behalf of Diamond West Development. Additionally, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 8.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 9) states:

(a) 9

RFA No. 9 requests that Horne “Admit RAMIREZ was authorized to enter agreements with PLAINTIFF on YOUR behalf.” Horne’s statement that “Defendant Ramirez has never been authorized by Responding Party to enter into any contracts on its behalf” addresses RFA No. 9. However, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 9.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 10) states:

(a) 10

RFA No. 10 requests that Horne “Admit PLAINTIFF hired YOU for demolition work at the PROPERTY.” Plaintiff correctly asserts that Horne’s response does not address whether Plaintiff hired Horne for demolition work at the Property. Additionally, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 10.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 11) states:

(a) 11

RFA No. 11 requests that Horne “Admit PLAINTIFF hired YOU to perform water damage abatement at the PROPERTY.” Plaintiff correctly asserts that Horne’s response does not address whether Plaintiff hired Horne to perform water abatement work at the Property. Additionally, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 11.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 12) states:

(a) 12

RFA No. 12 requests that Horne “Admit PLAINTIFF hired Diamond West Development for demolition work at the PROPERTY.” Plaintiff correctly asserts that Horne’s response does not address whether Plaintiff hired Diamond West Development for demolition work at the Property. Additionally, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 12.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 13) states:

(a) 13

RFA No. 13 requests that Horne “Admit PLAINTIFF hired Diamond West Development to perform water damage abatement at the PROPERTY.” Plaintiff correctly asserts that Horne’s response does not address whether Plaintiff hired Diamond West Development to perform water abatement work at the Property. Additionally, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 13.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 14) states:

(a) 14

RFA No. 14 requests that Horne “Admit PLAINTIFF hired YOU for remodeling work at the PROPERTY.” Plaintiff correctly asserts that Horne’s response does not address whether Plaintiff hired Horne for remodeling work at the Property. Additionally, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 14.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 15) states:

(a) 15

RFA No. 15 requests that Horne “Admit PLAINTIFF hired Diamond West Development for remodeling work at the PROPERTY.” Plaintiff correctly asserts that Horne’s response does not address whether Plaintiff hired Diamond West Development for remodeling work at the Property. Additionally, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 15.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 16) states:

(a) 16

RFA No. 16 requests that Horne “Admit YOU promised PLAINTIFF the remodeling work would be completed in an expeditious manner.” Plaintiff correctly asserts that Horne’s response does not address whether Horne promised Plaintiff the remodeling work would be completed in an expeditious manner. Additionally, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 16.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 17) states:

(a) 17

RFA No. 17 requests that Horne “Admit Diamond West Development promised PLAINTIFF the remodeling work would be completed in an expeditious manner.” Plaintiff correctly asserts that Horne’s response does not address whether Diamond West Development promised Plaintiff the remodeling work would be completed in an expeditious manner. Additionally, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 17.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 18) states:

(a) 18

RFA No. 18 requests that Horne “Admit the cost estimate for the remodeling work was $300,000.” Plaintiff correctly asserts that Horne’s response does not address whether the cost estimate for the remodeling work was $300,000. Additionally, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 18.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 19) states:

(a) 19

RFA No. 19 requests that Horne “Admit PLAINTIFF was invoiced more than $600,000 for the remodeling work.” Plaintiff correctly asserts that Horne’s response does not address whether Plaintiff was invoiced more than $600,000 for the remodeling work. Additionally, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 19.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 20) states:

(a) 20

RFA No. 20 requests that Horne “Admit PLAINTIFF was invoiced more than $600,000 for the remodeling work.” Plaintiff correctly asserts that Horne’s response does not address whether Plaintiff was invoiced more than $600,000 for the remodeling work. Additionally, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 20.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 21) states:

(a) 21

RFA No. 21 requests that Horne “Admit RAMIREZ was not a licensed contractor at any time when YOU or he performed work at the PROPERTY.” Plaintiff correctly asserts that Horne’s response does not address whether Ramirez was a licensed contractor or not at any time when Horne or Ramirez performed work at the Property. Additionally, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 21.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 22) states:

(a) 22

RFA No. 22 requests that Horne “admit that Ramirez represented to Plaintiff that he was a licensed contractor while he was acting as Horne’s agent.” Although Horne’s response that Ramirez was never Horne’s agent for projects related to the Property seems to address RFA No. 22, the request seeks information that is broader in scope than Horne’s response. Horne must address whether Ramirez represented to Plaintiff that Ramirez was a licensed contractor at any time Ramirez was acting as Horne’s agent. Additionally, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 22.

Horne’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 (RFA No. 23) states:

(a) 23

RFA No. 23 requests that Horne “Admit YOU authorized RAMIREZ to seek out construction projects using YOUR license number.” Horne’s response that Ramirez has never been authorized to use Horne’s contractor license addresses RFA No. 23. However, Horne did not provide contact information for the identified witnesses. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 23.

Horne acknowledges that he inadvertently failed to provide a response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 in connection with RFA No. 25. The court grants the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 for RFA No. 25.

B. Sanctions

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $3,253.00 as follows:

5.9 hours at $225/hr for Michelle K. Camp to research, draft, and revise the motion;
2.7 hours at $395/hr Jame P. Mascaro to review and revise the motion;
2 hours for Mascaro to review the opposition, prepare a reply, and attend the hearing (anticipated); and
$60 for the filing fee.

The court awards sanctions in the reduced amount of $2,454.00.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff 8911 Sunset LLC’s motion to compel Defendant Jeffrey Horne to provide a further response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 4, 5, 7-19, and 22 is DENIED.

The court agrees with Plaintiff that “a civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.) Under the Discovery Act, “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) The California Supreme Court in Williams explained that “[s]ection 2017.010 and other statutes governing discovery ‘must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes for denial.’ [Citation.]” (Id.) “Under the Legislature’s ‘very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy,’ any ‘doubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.’ ” (Id. at 542.) But the scope of discovery, though broad, “ ‘is not limitless.’ ” (Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1039.) Information that is otherwise discoverable “may be protected by a constitutional or statutory privilege.” (Id.)

A party moving to compel further responses to a production demand must show good cause justifying the discovery sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) “[T]hat burden is met ... by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Here, each of the requests at issue is overbroad and do not seek targeted information regarding Horne’s knowledge of or Horne’s involvement in the construction at Plaintiff’s Property and Horne’s relationship with Defendant Jose Alfredo Ramirez. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that it showed good cause by a fact-specific showing of relevance as to documents unrelated to the construction work in this case or Defendant Ramirez. The motion to compel further responses to Request for Production Nos. 4, 5, 7-19, and 22 is denied.

Defendant Horne’s request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiff 8911 Sunset LLC shall pay sanctions in the amount of $900.00 to Defendant Jeffrey Horne dba Diamond West Construction within 30 days of service of notice of ruling. (See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010(d); id. § 2031.310(h).)

Defendant Horne to give notice.