Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 23SMCV00573, Date: 2025-06-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00573    Hearing Date: June 13, 2025    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Beverly Hills Courthouse | Department 205

Background

Factual Background

This case arises from a failed Joint Venture Agreement between the parties. Plaintiffs in this case are James Ward, a businessman, and Ward-Schurr Inc., a corporate entity. Defendant is Anthony Scott, another businessman.

In April of 2016, the parties entered into a Joint Venture Agreement to develop a 48-unit apartment complex in Houston, Texas. As the cost of this project ballooned, the parties mutually agreed to arbitrate a dissolution of the joint venture. The arbitrator found in favor of Defendant Anthony Scott, and Defendant was granted a quitclaim deed to the Houston property via a settlement agreement.

Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit alleging breach of the settlement agreement. Defendant then filed a Cross-Complaint, also alleging breach of the settlement agreement.

At issue in this motion are six discovery requests submitted by Defendant against Plaintiffs. Defendant moves to compel initial discovery for the Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production they served on both James Ward and Ward-Schurr, Inc.

Procedural Background

On February 7, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this Complaint.

On April 21, 2023, Defendant filed their Answer.

On October 2, 2023, with leave of court, Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint.

On November 14, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an Answer to the Cross-Complaint.

On May 21, 2025, Defendant filed these six Motions to Compel Initial Discovery.

Analysis

Defendant moves to compel initial responses to six separate discovery requests. Defendant requests responses from both Plaintiffs individually, as to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One.

Form Interrogatories, Set One, as to Plaintiff Ward-Schurr Inc.

Defendant moves to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, from Plaintiff Ward-Schurr Inc. Under CCP § 2030.290, if a party does not respond to a request for interrogatories in a timely fashion, the requesting party can move to compel responses (CCP § 2030.290 (b).) In this case, Defendant submitted Form Interrogatories, Set One, to Ward-Schurr Inc. on April 3, 2025. (Backus Decl. Re: Motion No. 1 ¶ 3; Id. Ex. A.) Plaintiff did not respond to this request by the scheduled deadline, nor have they submitted their responses since then. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 5.) Under CCP § 2030.290, once a party has moved to compel responses to late interrogatories, a court may grant the motion.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, from Plaintiff Ward-Schurr Inc, without objections.

Form Interrogatories Set One as to Plaintiff James Ward

Defendant moves to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, from Plaintiff James Ward. Under CCP § 2030.290, if a party does not respond to a request for interrogatories in a timely fashion, the requesting party can move to compel responses (CCP § 2030.290 (b).) In this case, Defendant submitted Form Interrogatories, Set One, to James Ward. on April 3, 2025. (Backus Decl. Re: Motion No. 2 ¶ 3; Id. Ex. A.) Plaintiff did not respond to this request by the scheduled deadline, nor have they submitted their responses since then. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 5.) Under CCP § 2030.290, once a party has moved to compel responses to late interrogatories, a court may grant the motion.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, from Plaintiff James Ward, without objections.

Special Interrogatories, Set One, as to Plaintiff Ward-Schurr Inc.

Defendant moves to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, from Plaintiff Ward-Schurr Inc. Under CCP § 2030.290, if a party does not respond to a request for interrogatories in a timely fashion, the requesting party can move to compel responses (CCP § 2030.290 (b).) In this case, Defendant submitted Special Interrogatories, Set One, to Ward-Schurr Inc. on April 3, 2025. (Backus Decl. Re: Motion No. 4 ¶ 2; Id. Ex. A.) Plaintiff did not respond to this request by the scheduled deadline. (Ibid.) However, Plaintiff did respond on May 17, 2025. (Id. Ex. B.) In their response, Plaintiff answered all 15 Special Interrogatories. (Id. Ex. B, pp. 2-5.) However, Plaintiff also included boilerplate objections, which they incorporated into all of their subsequent responses. (Id. Ex. B, p. 2:15-20.) This is improper. Under CCP § 2030.290, “if a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . the party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives . . . any objection to the interrogatories.” (CCP § 2030.290(a), emphasis added.) Because Plaintiff’s responses were late, they needed to be submitted without objections.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, from Plaintiff Ward-Schurr Inc. Plaintiff is ordered to submit responses without objections, and without withholding any information based on those objections.

Special Interrogatories, Set One, as to Plaintiff James Ward

Defendant moves to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, from Plaintiff James Ward. Under CCP § 2030.290, if a party does not respond to a request for interrogatories in a timely fashion, the requesting party can move to compel responses (CCP § 2030.290 (b).) In this case, Defendant submitted Special Interrogatories, Set One, to James Ward on April 3, 2025. (Backus Decl. Re: Motion No. 5 ¶ 2; Id. Ex. A.) Plaintiff did not respond to this request by the scheduled deadline. (Ibid.) However, Plaintiff Ward did respond on May 17, 2025. (Id. Ex. B.) In their response, Plaintiff answered all 14 Special Interrogatories. (Id. Ex. B, pp. 2-5.) However, Plaintiff also included boilerplate objections, which they incorporated into all of their subsequent responses. (Id. Ex. B, p. 2:15-20.) This is improper. Under CCP § 2030.290, “if a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . the party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives . . . any objection to the interrogatories.” (CCP § 2030.290(a), emphasis added.) Because Plaintiff’s responses were late, they needed to be submitted without objections.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, from Plaintiff James Ward. Plaintiff is ordered to submit responses without objections, and without withholding any information based on those objections.

Request for Production, Set One, as to Plaintiff Ward-Schurr Inc.

Defendant moves to compel responses to Request for Production, Set One from Plaintiff Ward-Schurr Inc. Under CCP § 2031.300, if a party does not respond to a request for production in a timely fashion, the requesting party can move to compel production. (CCP § 2031.300 (b).) In this case, Defendant submitted Request for Production, Set One, to Ward-Schurr Inc. on April 3, 2025. (Backus Decl. Re: Motion No. 3 ¶ 3; Id. Ex. A.) Plaintiff did not respond to this request by the scheduled deadline, nor have they submitted their responses since then. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 5.) Under CCP § 2031.300, once a party has moved to compel responses to late requests for production, a court may grant the motion.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production, Set One from Plaintiff Ward-Schurr Inc.

Request for Production, Set One, as to Plaintiff James Ward

Defendant moves to compel responses to Request for Production, Set One. Under CCP § 2031.300, if a party does not respond to a request for production in a timely fashion, the requesting party can move to compel production. (CCP § 2031.300 (b).) In this case, Defendant submitted Request for Production, Set One, to James Ward on April 3, 2025. (Backus Decl. Re: Motion No. 6 ¶ 3; Id. Ex. A.) Plaintiff did not respond to this request by the scheduled deadline. (Ibid.) However, Plaintiff did respond on May 17, 2025. (Id. Ex. B.) In their response, Plaintiff produced as to six of the eleven requests. (Id. Ex. B, pp. 2-5.) However, Plaintiff also withheld production, and included a boilerplate objection, which they incorporate into all of their subsequent responses. (Id. Ex. B, pp. 1-2.) This is improper. Under CCP § 2031.300 (a) “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response . . . the party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand” (CCP § 2031.300(a), emphasis added.) Because Plaintiff’s responses were late, they needed to be submitted without objections.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production, Set One, from Plaintiff James Ward. Plaintiff is ordered to submit responses without objections, and without any information withheld based on those objections.

Sanctions

Defendant also moves for monetary sanctions in conjunction with all six of these discovery motions.

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel Interrogatories or Requests for Production, unless the non-complying party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP § 2031.300 (c), CCP § 2030.290(c).)

As to the two Motions to Compel Form Interrogatories, as well as the Motion to Compel Requests for Production from Ward-Schurr Inc., Plaintiffs failed to produce any response whatsoever. (Backus Decl. Re: Motion No. 1 ¶ 5; Backus Decl. Re: Motion No. 2 ¶ 5; Backus Decl. Re: Motion No. 3 ¶ 5.) As to the Special Interrogatories and Request for Production from James Ward, Plaintiffs submitted their answers late, and with non-compliant objections. (Backus Decl. Re: Motion No. 4 ¶ 5; Backus Decl. Re: Motion No. 5 ¶ 5; Backus Decl. Re: Motion No. 6 ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion, and therefore they offer no explanation as to why their non-response was substantially justified. Therefore, sanctions are appropriate.

Defendant makes the following requests for sanctions.

1 - Form Interrogatories, Set One, as to Plaintiff Ward-Schurr Inc.

Defendant requests $810.00 in monetary sanctions for this first motion. (Backus Decl. Re: Motion No. 1 ¶ 9.) Defendant’s counsel puts their hourly rate at $300.00. (Ibid.) Counsel states that they spent 2 hours working up this motion. (Id. ¶ 7.) Counsel further states that they anticipate spending 0.2 hours reviewing the opposition papers, and 0.3 hours attending the hearing on this Motion, for a total of 2.5 hours. (Id. ¶ 8.) Counsel also states they paid a $60.00 filing fee for this motion.

2 - Form Interrogatories Set One as to Plaintiff James Ward

Defendant requests $810.00 in monetary sanctions for this second motion. (Backus Decl. Re: Motion No. 2 ¶ 9.) Defendant’s counsel puts their hourly rate at $300.00. (Ibid.) Counsel states that they spent 2 hours working up this motion. (Id. ¶ 7.) Counsel further states that they anticipate spending 0.2 hours reviewing the opposition papers, and 0.3 hours attending the hearing on this Motion, for a total of 2.5 hours. (Id. ¶ 8.) Counsel also states they paid a $60.00 filing fee for this motion.

3 - Special Interrogatories, Set One, as to Plaintiff Ward-Schurr Inc.

Defendant requests $1,110.00 in monetary sanctions for this third motion. (Backus Decl. Re: Motion No. 4 ¶ 9.) Defendant’s counsel puts their hourly rate at $300.00. (Ibid.) Counsel states that they spent 3 hours working up this motion. (Id. ¶ 7.) Counsel further states that they anticipate spending 0.2 hours reviewing the opposition papers, and 0.3 hours attending the hearing on this Motion, for a total of 3.5 hours. (Id. ¶ 8.) Counsel also states they paid a $60.00 filing fee for this motion.

4 - Special Interrogatories, Set One, as to Plaintiff James Ward

Defendant requests $1,110.00 in monetary sanctions for this fourth motion. (Backus Decl. Re: Motion No. 5 ¶ 9.) Defendant’s counsel puts their hourly rate at $300.00. (Ibid.) Counsel states that they spent 3 hours working up this motion. (Id. ¶ 7.) Counsel further states that they anticipate spending 0.2 hours reviewing the opposition papers, and 0.3 hours attending the hearing on this Motion, for a total of 3.5 hours. (Id. ¶ 8.) Counsel also states they paid a $60.00 filing fee for this motion.

5 - Request for Production, Set One, as to Plaintiff Ward-Schurr Inc.

Defendant requests $810.00 in monetary sanctions for this fifth motion. (Backus Decl. Re: Motion No. 3 ¶ 9.) Defendant’s counsel puts their hourly rate at $300.00. (Ibid.) Counsel states that they spent 2 hours working up this motion. (Id. ¶ 7.) Counsel further states that they anticipate spending 0.2 hours reviewing the opposition papers, and 0.3 hours attending the hearing on this Motion, for a total of 2.5 hours. (Id. ¶ 8.) Counsel also states they paid a $60.00 filing fee for this motion.

6 - Request for Production, Set One, as to Plaintiff James Ward

Defendant requests $1,110.00 in monetary sanctions for this sixth motion. (Backus Decl. Re: Motion No. 6 ¶ 9.) Defendant’s counsel puts their hourly rate at $300.00. (Ibid.) Counsel states that they spent 3 hours working up this motion. (Id. ¶ 7.) Counsel further states that they anticipate spending 0.2 hours reviewing the opposition papers, and 0.3 hours attending the hearing on this Motion, for a total of 3.5 hours. (Id. ¶ 8.) Counsel also states they paid a $60.00 filing fee for this motion.

This brings the total requested sanctions to $5,760.00, representing 15 total hours of actual work, 3 hours of anticipated work, and $360.00 in filing fees.

While the Court agrees that sanctions are appropriate here, the Court finds Defendant’s request unreasonable. First, Plaintiffs have filed no Oppositions to these motions. Therefore, Defendant counsel will not have to spend 0.2 hours reviewing these Oppositions or drafting Replies. Second, counsel’s requests for 0.3 hours attending this hearing is duplicative. All six of these motions will be heard simultaneously, so five of these requests are duplicative. For these reasons, the Court reduces the total anticipated hours requested to 0.3.

Additionally, the Court reduces the requested 15 hours of actual work down to 7.5 hours. Despite the fact that Defendant brough all six of these motions individually, the motions are functionally identical. The only difference between motions one and two are the names. (See generally, Mot. to Compel Nos. 1-2.) The same is true for motions four and five. (See generally, Mot. to Compel Nos. 4-5.) Thus, the Court finds it would be unreasonable to repeatedly count these hours.

This brings the total hours requested to 7.8. At a rate of $300.00 an hour, plus $360.00 filing fees, the total sanctions come to $2,700.00

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $2,700.00.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, from Plaintiff Ward-Schurr Inc, without objections.

The Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, from Plaintiff James Ward, without objections.

The Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, from Plaintiff Ward-Schurr Inc. Plaintiff is ordered to submit responses without objections, and without withholding any information based on those objections.

The Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, from Plaintiff James Ward. Plaintiff is ordered to submit responses without objections, and without withholding any information based on those objections.

The Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production, Set One from Plaintiff Ward-Schurr Inc.

The Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production, Set One, from Plaintiff James Ward. Plaintiff is ordered to submit responses without objections, and without withholding any information based on those objections.

All the responses ordered above are to be served by June 23, 2025.

The Court also GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $2,700.00 to be paid by June 23, 2025.

Dated: June 13, 2025

__________________________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court