Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STCV29839, Date: 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Please contact Department 52 at SMCDEPT52@lacourt.org and send a copy of the email to all parties, to advise the courtroom staff if parties are submitting on the court’s tentative ruling.
Please provide the Case Name, Case Number, and party.

Case Number: 21STCV29839    Hearing Date: August 11, 2022    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:   

Plaintiff Victor Alarcon’s Motions to Compel Further Responses: (1) by Epyon LLC to Requests for Admission; (2) by Christopher Alarcon to Requests for Admission; (3) by Defendant Epyon LLC to Form Interrogatories; (4) by Defendant Christopher Alarcon to Form Interrogatories; and (5) by Christopher Alarcon to Requests for Production

General Comment

Discovery is intended to allow the parties to learn the facts of the case and contentions of the other party so that they may be fully prepared for trial.  An important benefit of the proper compliance with discovery obligations is that it also allows the parties to intelligently discuss settlement.  Often, when the information is provided, the differences between the parties is diminished as each side appreciates the information.  It is important that parties not engage in conduct which impedes this proper exchange of information or that unduly increases the time and costs associated with obtaining discovery.

As the Court understand it, this is a rather straight-forward case.  The Plaintiff claims that he is the real owner of the real property.  But he has placed the record title to the property in the names of others and now is attempting to become the owner of record.  Defendants claim that they are the owners.  Unfortunately, this case involves a 30 year history of these real estate dealings with the use of alleged “straw” owners.

It is important to the Court that the parties not engage in discovery conduct which impedes the proper use of discovery.  The Court expects all parties to take the time and care to prepare proper discovery and to respond properly, in good faith, to meet the obligation that the parties have in this regard. 

Evidentiary Objections

            Defendants Christopher Alarcon and Epyon LLC make numerous objections to plaintiff’s evidence on the five motions.  All objections are overruled.

Mootness

            Defendants contend that the motions are moot because they served further responses.  The motions are moot as to the initial responses that have been superseded by further responses.  The motions are not moot as to plaintiff’s requests for sanctions.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a) [court may award sanctions “even though … the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed”].)  Defendants did not, however, serve further responses to all discovery requests at issue.

The long delay in providing the further discovery is worthy of sanctions.  Delay is a tactic that undermines proper discovery and merely tests the resolve of the other party to obtain discovery.  It is not acceptable.

(1) Requests for Admission to Epyon LLC

Plaintiff Victor Alarcon moves to compel defendant Epyon LLC to provide further responses to requests for admission Nos. 36-40, 43-54, and 121-126.  As to further responses, this motion is moot because defendant Epyon LLC ultimately provided supplemental responses to those requests.  (Rodriguez Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) 

            Plaintiff moves for $2,110 in sanctions against Epyon LLC and its counsel, Michael Simkin.  Epyon LLC misused the discovery process by making meritless objections.  (CCP § 2023.010(e).)  To all requests after No. 35, it objected that plaintiff failed to provide a declaration that more requests were necessary as required under CCP § 2033.050.  Plaintiff did provide such a declaration, but after first inadvertently serving the requests for admission without them.  (Goldstein Decl., ¶¶ 3-4; Simkin Decl., ¶¶ 6-8.)

The court finds Epyon LLC did not act with substantial justification and sanctions are just under the circumstances.  Defense counsel states, “If [plaintiff’s] counsel would have provided some background, perhaps Plaintiff’s error” in not including the declarations of necessity at first “would have been discovered and this motion avoided.”  (Simkin Decl., ¶ 8.)  But, despite the early miscommunication, during the meet and confer process plaintiff’s counsel sent the declaration of necessity to defense counsel.  (Goldstein Decl., ¶ 4.)  Defendant therefore knew the objections were meritless.  Defense counsel also agreed to provide further responses but did not do so until after plaintiff filed these motions.  (Id., ¶¶ 5-8.)  Defendant Epyon LLC was not justified in delaying several months and waiting for after plaintiff filed the motion to serve further responses.

Plaintiff seeks $2,110 in sanctions against Epyon LLC, including the $60 filing fee plus 2.5 hours of attorney fees at $320 hourly and 2.5 hours of attorney fees at $500 hourly.  (Goldstein Decl., ¶¶ 9-16.)  The court grants the requested sanction in the amount of $2,110, which is the obligation of Defendant Epyon LLC and its counsel Michael J. Simkin.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Epyon LLC to provide further responses to requests for admission is granted in part as to sanctions.  Defendant Epyon LLC and its counsel Michael J. Simkin are ordered to pay plaintiff Victor Alarcon $2,110 in sanctions within 30 days.

(2) Requests for Admission to Christopher Alarcon

Plaintiff Victor Alarcon moves to compel defendant Christopher Alarcon to provide further responses to requests for admission Nos. 36-40, 43-54, 88-106, 111-112, 115-118, 127-129, and 132.  The motion is moot as to the responses because Christopher Alarcon ultimately served further responses.  (Rodriguez Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.)

            Plaintiff moves for $3,340 in sanctions against Christopher Alarcon and his counsel.  Defendant Christopher Alarcon misused the discovery process by making meritless objections (CCP § 2023.010(e)) for the same reasons as defendant Epyon LLC.      

The court finds Christopher Alarcon did not act with substantial justification and sanctions are just under the circumstances for the same reasons as defendant Epyon LLC.

Plaintiff seeks $3,340 in sanctions against Christopher Alarcon, including the $60 filing fee plus 4.0 hours of attorney fees at $320 hourly and 4.0 hours at $500 hourly.  (Goldstein Decl., ¶¶ 9-16.)  The court grants the sanctions requested in the amount of $3,340 against Defendant Christopher Alarcon and his counsel Michael J. Simkin.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Christopher Alarcon to provide further responses to requests for admission is granted in part as to sanctions.  Defendant Christopher Alarcon and Michael J. Simkin are ordered to pay plaintiff Victor Alarcon $3,340 in sanctions within 30 days.

(3) Form Interrogatories to Epyon LLC

            Plaintiff Victor Alarcon moves to compel defendant Epyon LLC to provide further responses to form interrogatories – general, No. 17.1 (regarding numerous requests for admission). 

Plaintiff’s memorandum in support of the motion argues Epyon LLC failed to provide adequate responses to form interrogatories Nos. 12.4, 12.7, 14.1, 14.2, 15.1, and 17.1.  (Memo., pp. 3, 9.)  The moving papers do not clearly state plaintiff moves to compel further responses to those interrogatories.  The separate statement includes only No. 17.1.  The court therefore will consider the motion only as to No. 17.1  Epyon LLC provided a further response to No. 17.1 (Rodriguez Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1), so the motion is moot as to compelling further responses. 

            Plaintiff moves for $1,200 in sanctions against Epyon LLC.  The court finds Epyon acted with substantial justification.  Most of the motion concerns responses to form interrogatory No. 17.1 regarding requests for admission to which Epyon LLC objected and made no admission or denial.  Form interrogatory No. 17.1 asks for facts, witnesses, and documents supporting responses that are not admissions.  Epyon LLC took the reasonable position that it does not apply when the responses were only objections.

            The motion is denied.

(4) Form Interrogatories to Christopher Alarcon

            Plaintiff Victor Alarcon moves to compel defendant Christopher Alarcon to provide further responses to form interrogatories – general, Nos. 12.4, 12.7, 14.1, 14.2, 15.1, and 17.1 (regarding numerous requests for admission).  As to further responses, the motion is moot because Christopher Alarcon ultimately served supplemental responses to each request at issue.  (Rodriguez Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.)

            Plaintiff moves for $2,680 in sanctions.   The court finds that Christopher Alarcon acted with substantial justification.  For Nos. 12.4, 12.7, 14.1, and 14.2, he justifiably objected that the definition of “incident” was too vague to answer the questions.  This case revolves around transactions related to real property at 14536 Delano Street, Van Nuys, California 91411.  The facts alleged in the complaint include numerous transactions and events from 1993 (¶ 11) to 2021 (¶¶ 33-35).  Plaintiff failed to adequately define “incident.”  For No. 17.1, Christopher Alarcon’s objections as to most of the requests for admission were again justified because he did not admit or deny the requests and instead only objected. 

            The motion is denied.

(5) Requests for Production to Christopher Alarcon

            Plaintiff Victor Alarcon moves to compel defendant Christopher Alarcon to provide further responses to requests for production Nos. 1-7, 9-23, 131-156, and 161-166.  As to further responses, this motion is moot because Christopher Alarcon ultimately served supplemental responses.  (Rodriguez Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.)

            Plaintiff moves for $4,535 in sanctions against defendant Christopher Alarcon and his counsel.  Defendant Christopher Alarcon misused the discovery process by making meritless objections.  (CCP § 2023.010(e).)  He repeatedly objected that the requests do not have reasonably particularized categories as required under CCP § 2031.030(c)(1).  They do.  Using specially defined terms, as plaintiff did, does not “turn them into blanket or generalized demands.”  (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 757.)  “Extensive definitions often are necessary to prevent incomplete or evasive responses.”  (Ibid.)

For example, No. 19 asked for: “All DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession, custody, or control that REFLECT, REFER, AND/OR RELATE to the payment of maintenance expenses for the PROPERTIES from January 1, 2018 to present.”  This request is straightforward and reasonably particularized.

            Defendant Christopher Alarcon also objected that the requests “may call for attorney work product and/or attorney client privileged materials.”  That objection does not apply for most of the requests, such as No. 19 above.  Defendant did not attempt to justify this objection.  Moreover, Christopher Alarcon did not identify any documents being withheld subject to an objection as required under CCP § 2031.240(b)(1) and did not “provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits” of his claims of privilege as required under § 2031.240(c)(1).

            The court finds defendant Christopher Alarcon did not act with substantial justification and sanctions are just under the circumstances.   

The court, however, finds that $4,535 in sanctions are not the expenses plaintiff reasonably incurred.  Plaintiff seeks 5.0 hours of attorney fees at $320 hourly and 5.75 hours at $500 hourly.  (Goldstein Decl., ¶¶ 9-16.)  The court finds the reasonable expenses incurred were 3.0 hours at $320 hourly and 3.5 hours at $500 hourly, plus the $60 filing fee, for a total of $2,770.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Christopher to provide further responses to requests for production is granted in part as to sanctions.  Defendant Christopher Alarcon and Michael J. Simkin are ordered to pay plaintiff Victor Alarcon $2,770 in sanctions within 30 days.

Conclusion

The Court reminds the parties that discovery requires both parties should engage in good faith in the discovery process.  Conduct which impedes proper discovery should be avoided.