Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: "Signature Collection Properties, LLC v. Academy West Investments, LLC", Date: 2022-08-03 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories.

Plaintiff Signature Collection Properties, Inc. moves to compel Defendant Academy West Investment, LLC to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 8, 16, 22, 23, and 33.  For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories on the grounds that the answer is evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce documents under Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, and/or an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a).)  “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 76; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010(f) [evasive response is ground for sanctions].)  Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer that supplies only a portion of the information sought is improper. It is also improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)

A responding party may properly refer to documents instead of providing a complete and straightforward answer to an interrogatory only in those cases where the interrogatory seeks information contained in so many records and files that responding to the interrogatory would necessitate making a compilation or summary of the information contained in the records and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) In order to utilize this code section, the responding party must satisfy certain requirements. (Ibid.) The interrogatory must refer to Section 2030.230 and to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) “This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. The responding party shall then afford to the propounding party a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.)

Special Interrogatory No. 8 asks Defendant to “Describe in detail the manner in which YOU spent the money SCP provided to YOU in connection with the JOINT VENTURE.”  Special Interrogatory No. 23 asks Defendant to “Describe the current status for each and every investment of the JOINT VENTURE.”

Defendant asserted several objections to these interrogatories.  Defendant objected to the interrogatory on the basis that it is overbroad, vague and ambiguous, oppressive.  Defendant also objected that the interrogatory seeks irrelevant, confidential, or privileged information, or information that is equally available to Plaintiff.  Defendant failed to justify its objections in either its opposition or separate statement.  (See Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221 (if a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories).)

After asserting several objections, Defendant refers Plaintiff “to the documents from which a further answer to this interrogatory can be derived: the documents produced in response to Propounding Party’s Request for Production and those produced by Propounding Party.”  Defendant has not met its burden of showing that the burden and expense of  preparing a compilation required to answer this interrogatory would be substantially the same for Plaintiff as for the defendants.  Defendant also does not show that it provided sufficient detail to permit Plaintiff to locate and identify the specific documents from which the answer to the interrogatory could be ascertained.  Therefore, the court orders Defendant to provide supplemental responses to these special interrogatories.

Special Interrogatory No. 16 asks Defendant to “Describe in detail the current status of the BUCKINGHAM INVESTMENT.”  Special Interrogatory No. 22 asks Defendant to “Describe each and every investment of the JOINT VENTURE.”  And Special Interrogatory No. 33 asks Defendant to “Describe the source of funds YOU used to obtain an interest in the WOLRUN INVESTMENT.”

Defendant objected to these interrogatories on the same bases that it objected to Special Interrogatories No. 8 and 23.  As discussed previously, Defendant has not justified those objections.  Besides the objections, Defendant responded to Special Interrogatory No. 16 with the following two sentences: “The Buckingham is currently owned by a syndicate comprised of Versity Investments, LLC. AWC owns the parking lot adjacent to the project.”  This is insufficient.  For instance, the response does not identify who or what constitutes the syndicate.  Defendant’s second supplemental response contains more information, but Defendant has not fully described the ownership and status of the investment. 

Defendant responded to Special Interrogatory No. 22 with the following: “Wolfrun is a student housing project in Reno, Nevada. The investment is comprised of both a student housing facility and land. Buckingham is a student housing project in Chicago, Illinois. AWC owns the parking lot adjacent to the project. Stretch, formerly known as Bluegrass, is a student housing project in Lexington, Kentucky.”  Defendant did not describe the structure for each of the investments, the parties that are involved in each project, and Defendant’s interest and role in the projects. 

Defendant responded to Special Interrogatory No. 33 with the following: “Responding Party funded its interest in the Wolfrun project at the closing using cash available to Responding Party in its bank account.”  Defendant did not detail how much Blake Wettengel purportedly contributed to Defendant’s bank account and how that source of funds was earmarked. 

Defendant is ordered to provide further supplemental verified responses consistent with this ruling within 30 days of notice of ruling.

The motion did not seek sanctions, so no sanctions will be issued.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.040.)

Plaintiff to give notice.