Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 21STCV20644, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20644    Hearing Date: March 7, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Talasazan v. La Cienega Venture, LLC, Case No. 21STCV20644

Hearing Date March 7, 2023

Defendant’s Motions to Compel further Discovery Responses (UNOPPOSED)

Defendant La Cienega served form interrogatories, requests for production and special interrogatories on August 5, 2021. Talasazan responded on November 1, 2021. La Cienega argues some responses are deficient and seeks to compel further.

Additionally, on March 31, 2022 La Cienega served plaintiff with a demand for inspection of Talasazan’s allegedly damaged property. La Cienega states Talasazan has not yet produced the property for inspection and moves for an order to compel.

None of the motions is opposed, and La Cienega filed notices of non-receipt of opposition on February 28, 2023.

A party responding to written discovery is required to make a good faith effort to respond as completely as possible, and to state if he or she does not have personal knowledge required to answer. E.g. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.220. A party who fails to timely respond to properly propounded discovery requests waives all objections. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.090.

Form Interrogatories

Form interrogatory 7.3 requests information regarding repairs to Talasazan’s property. The request asks, inter alia, for the date and cost of any repairs. Talasazan’s response identifies a repair but fails to provide a date or cost. That information is relevant and within Talasazan’s personal knowledge and must be provided. Additionally, in response to interrogatory No. 12.1, Talasazan identifies witnesses but fails to provide their addresses. Talasazan must provide this information, or state that he does not possess it.

Special Interrogatories

Each special interrogatories asks plaintiff to identify the people who have knowledge of Talasazan’s allegations, or documents that support the allegations. Talasazan fails to substantively respond to any requests. All are relevant and all are within Talasazan’s personal knowledge. Plaintiff must provide substantive responses to these interrogatories.

Request for Production

The request for production seeks documents reflecting Talasazan’s ownership of the allegedly damaged property. Talasazan produced an appraisal of certain items. His response to form interrogatory No. 17.1 states he possesses bill of sale records for various items. Talasazan must produce the documents identified.

Request for Inspection

Alleged water damage to Talasazan’s property is the gravamen of this action. The property must be produced for inspection.

Sanctions

Since Talasazan’s discovery responses were untimely and deficient, and because Talasazan has provided no justification for his failure to comply with his discovery obligations, sanctions are warranted. The court will award La Cienega’s requested $622.50 in sanctions. The court will not award this amount separately for each of the four motions, however, to avoid a duplicative award. GRANTED as stated above. All verified responses, without objection, to be provided within 20 days. The property inspection to occur within 30 days at a date and time agreed to by the parties.