Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 23SMCV02981, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV02981, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV02981 Hearing Date: February 24, 2025 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Crestwood Hills v. Broumand, Case no. 23SMCV02981

Hearing date February 24, 2025

Defendants’ Omnibus Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Plaintiff Crestwood Hills Association sues defendants Cameron and Mary Beth Broumand for breach of declaration and declaratory relief arising from defendants’ building of a home on restricted property without approval. Defendants filed an omnibus motion to compel further responses to defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Requests for Admission, Set One. Defendants offer the declaration of counsel Braunstein. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Defendants argue plaintiff’s response is untimely; plaintiff’s response was filed one court day late. Defendants were able to file a substantive reply, demonstrating lack of prejudice. The court will consider plaintiff’s opposition.

To compel the production of documents, moving party must show good cause. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310(b)(1). Good cause exists where the requested documents are relevant and the discovery is needed for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. Assoc. Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98. When a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully respond to the discovery. Coy v. Superior Crt. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Crt. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.

Defendants served their requests for discovery 4/4/24. Decl. Braunstein para. 4. Plaintiff received an extension and served responses 6/17/24. Decl. Braunstein paras. 5-6. Plaintiff served supplemental responses and amended responses 8/16/24, 10/18/24 and 12/31/24. Decl. Braunstein paras. 9, 14, 16. The court granted leave to file the instant omnibus motion at an IDC 11/21/24. Decl. Braunstein para. 15.

A response to interrogatories must include (1) an answer containing the information sought; (2) an exercise of the party’s option to produce writings; or (3) an objection. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.210(a). Each answer shall be as complete and straightforward, and if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.220(a)-(b).

Defendants argue plaintiff’s response to form interrogatory 17.1 is deficient. Defendants argue plaintiff fails to comply with Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.220(b) by only offering vague or conclusory denials. Plaintiff generally asserts its response to 17.1 was complete, responsive and clear. This is insufficient; plaintiff must identify specific facts giving rise to its responses. Mere conclusory assertions are insufficient. Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, is GRANTED.

Defendants argue plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories nos. 17, 45, 105, 112, 114-115, and 119-120 are deficient. Defendants argue plaintiff fails to comply with Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.220(b). Plaintiff asserts it has provided response answers and lacks sufficient information to respond more fully. Defendant argues plaintiff must assert that a reasonable inquiry was made to comply with Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.220(b). Defendant is correct; where plaintiff is unable to furnish full responses, plaintiff must affirm that a reasonable inquiry was made. Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, is GRANTED.

Defendants argue plaintiff’s responses to requests for production of documents nos. 1, 2, 6, 8-9, 12-14, 17-20, 22-24, 27, 38-43, 45, 53, and 61 are deficient. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(a), a party may move for an order compelling further responses to the requests if (1) a statement of compliance is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete or evasive; or (3) an objection is without merit or too general. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310(a). Defendants argue plaintiff’s responses do not constitute proper statements of compliance or noncompliance as plaintiff purports to allow production in part. This is unavailing; “A statement that the party to whom a demand… has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production… will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2031.220. Plaintiff’s responses in part purport to produce all documents relating to the property at issue that exist under plaintiff’s control. Further, plaintiff represents in opposition that it has produced all responsive documents in its control and possession. This is sufficiently responsive to defendants’ requests.

Defendants argue plaintiff fails to provide a substantive response altogether to request nos. 18, 20, 23-24, 38-43, and 45. Plaintiff objects to each request as overbroad and irrelevant. Upon review the court finds request nos. 18, 20, 23-24, 38-43, and 45 to be significantly overbroad, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents, set one, is DENIED.

Defendants argue plaintiff’s responses to requests for admissions nos. 52, 67, 86, 87, and 89 are deficient. Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290(a), a party may move to compel further responses to requests for admissions if (1) an answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete; or (2) an objection is without merit or too general. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290(a). RFA nos. 67, 86 and 87 concern the document purported to be a certificate of amendment to the restrictions on the property at issue. The court noted at the 11/21/24 IDC that a failed attempt to amend the CC&Rs was not reasonably calculated to lead to reasonable discovery. Documents of failed attempts to amend are not relevant. Plaintiff’s responses to RFA nos. 52 and 89 are substantively compliant. Defendants’ arguments that the responses are evasive and incomplete are unavailing. Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to requests for admission, set one, is DENIED.

Defendants argue sanctions are appropriate and seek $6,000 in costs and fees. Decl. Braunstein paras. 38-40. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. provides a basis for an award of monetary sanctions against a party and his counsel for unsuccessfully opposing a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.300(d); §2031.310(h); §2033.290(d). Plaintiff’s opposition was not unsuccessful; sanctions are not appropriate.

Defendants’ omnibus motion to compel further discovery is GRANTED in part as above.