Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 21BBCV00321, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21BBCV00321    Hearing Date: August 26, 2022    Dept: A

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

ALLEGATIONS:

Plaintiff Commodity Trucking Acquisition, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company d.b.a. Tri-County Transportation ("Plaintiff") filed suit against Defendants Peña Construction Services, Inc., a California Corporation d.b.a. Peña Demolition (“Peña”); SJ4 Burbank, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (“SJ4”); Suretec Insurance Company, a Texas Corporation (“Suretec”); and RLI Insurance Company, and Illinois Corporation (“RLI”, and collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that SJ4 and Peña entered into an agreement (“Prime Contract”) on August 5, 2020 to perform construction work at 777 N. Front Street, Burbank, California 91502 (“Project”). Plaintiff alleges that Peña then entered into an agreement with Plaintiff (“Commodity Transport Agreement”) for Plaintiff to provide trucking, transportation, and leasing services for the Project. Plaintiff alleges that it performed such work, for it is still unpaid, in the amount of $100,712.60.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on April 5, 2021, and a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on July 13, 2021, alleging eight causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract (against Peña); (2) Recovery on Mechanics’ Lien Release Bond (against RLI and Peña); (3) Account Stated (against Peña); (4) Open Book Account (against Peña); (5) Quantum Meruit (against Peña); (6) Unjust Enrichment (against Peña and SJ4); (7) Payment of Transportation Charges (against Peña); and (8) Contractor’s License Bond (against Peña and Suretec).

Peña filed a Cross-Complaint (“PXC”) on August 4, 2021 against Plaintiff alleging a single cause of action for Breach of Written Contract.

HISTORY:

The Court received the Motion for Protective Order filed by Plaintiff on August 1, 2022; the opposition filed by Defendants on August 15, 2022; and the reply filed by Plaintiff on August 19, 2022.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff appears to move for an order protecting Plaintiff from special interrogatories propounded by Peña until Peña submits a sworn declaration identifying the factors warranting additional discovery and the reasons why such factors apply to the case, and Plaintiff has an opportunity to respond to such declaration. Plaintiff also moves for associated sanctions in the amount of $4,561.65.

ANALYSIS:

I.          LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 2030.050 provides that any party propounding more than 35 special interrogatories must attack a declaration containing substantial similar information to the sample declaration laid out in the statute. CCP § 2030.040 provides that the propounding party must explain how the greater number of special interrogatories is warranted because of any of the following:

(1) The complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case.

(2) The financial burden on a party entailed in conducting the discovery by oral deposition.

(3) The expedience of using this method of discovery to provide to the responding party the opportunity to conduct an inquiry, investigation, or search of files or records to supply the information sought.

(CCP § 2030.040(a).)

II.        MERITS

Plaintiff argues that Peña did not submit a declaration complying with CCP §§ 2030.050 or 2030.040 and refuses to remedy its declaration. In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s request for such a declaration is an unnecessary and unreasonable delay to respond to its discovery requests. Defendants argue that Plaintiff simply does not want to provide the requested information to Peña, and further argue that, if the Court is inclined to grant the instant motion, sanctions should be not imposed.

The Court has reviewed Peña’s special interrogatory declaration, attached as page 11 of Exhibit 1 to the Pugmire Declaration. This declaration does not comport with CCP §§ 2030.050 and 2030.040; Peña does not argue that it comports with the relevant statutes; and, Peña all but concedes that it did not comply with the relevant statutes. Whether or not Peña considers its discovery requests to be reasonable, it does not explain why it is exempt from statutory requirements. Peña provides no argument showing why the Court should not grant the instant motion.

III.       CONCLUSION; SANCTIONS

Accordingly, the Court grants the instant motion. The Court also grants sanctions for Plaintiff against Peña in the amount of $1,461.65, representing four hours of attorney work at $350 per hour, plus a $61.65 filing fee.

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiff Commodity Trucking Acquisition, LLC’s Motion for Protective Order came on regularly for hearing on August 26, 2022, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IS GRANTED. SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED FOR PLAINTIFF AGAINST PEÑA IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,461.65.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE:  August 26, 2022                               _______________________________

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge

                                                                        Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles