Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV01053, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01053    Hearing Date: February 23, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Anthony Lavigne (Plaintiff) brings this action against Avalon Bay Communities Inc. (Defendant) in relation to an apartment Plaintiff rents from Defendant located at 10987 Bluffside Drive, Apartment 4116 Studio City, California. 91604 (Subject Property). Plaintiff alleges a number of issues with the Subject Property that render it uninhabitable. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant continues to collect rent for the Subject Property while refusing to remediate issues of water intrusion, mold, and insect infestation.

Before the Court are two motions to compel further discovery responses brought by Defendant. Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 6.4 and Special Interrogatories Nos. 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 29, 32, 35, 38, 41, 44, 47, 50, 53, 56, 59, 62, 65, 68, 71, 74, 77, 80, 83, 86, 89, 92, 96, 102, 105, 108, 111, 114, 117, 120, 123, 126, and 129. Defendant additionally seeks monetary sanctions in regard to both motions. Plaintiff has rendered no opposition to either motion.

ANALYSIS: 

I.            LEGAL STANDARD 

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete, (2)¿an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response, or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (C.C.P. §¿2030.300(a).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections thereto. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21.)

II.            MERITS

The Court finds Defendant is entitled to further responses to their interrogatories.

On September 26, 2023, Defendant propounded its interrogatories on Plaintiff’s counsel via email service. (Aslanyan Decl. ¶ 2.) On October 24 ,2023, Plaintiff responded to the interrogatories. (Aslanyan Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel to address alleged shortcomings in the responses and providing until December 8, 2023 to send supplemental responses. (Aslanyan Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Exh. C.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not provide supplemental responses and did not reply to further meet and confer attempts. (Aslanyan Decl. ¶¶ 6-9.)  

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 6.4, which seeks information about the health care providers from which Plaintiff revied treatment, is incomplete and evasive. Plaintiff states that he received treatment from an urgent care facility but did not provide any of the requested contact information for that facility. (Aslanyan Decl. Exh. B, FROG No. 6.4) The Court agrees this response is incomplete and requires further response be compelled.

Defendant further argues that Plaintiff’s responses to each of the identified Special Interrogatories is defective in the same way. Each of these interrogatories requests identification of documents which evidence Plaintiff’s allegations as to the condition of the Subject Property. Each response is identical and contain a litany of objections followed by the statement “Responding Party contends that they are in possession of photographs inspection reports, all other relevant Documents, documenting conditions, and images documenting their complaints to the Defendants about the conditions.” (Aslanyan Decl. Exh. B.) The Court finds this statement in no way identifies any documents which are responsive to the request, instead submitting a vague overture as to the existence of some documents in Defendant’s possession.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has rendered no opposition to this motion. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (California Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c).) Further, on a motion to compel further responses Plaintiff has the burden to justify his objections thereto. Here, Plaintiff has failed to oppose this motion and failed to justify his objections.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further response to Form Interrogatory No 6.4 is GRANTED. 

The motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 29, 32, 35, 38, 41, 44, 47, 50, 53, 56, 59, 62, 65, 68, 71, 74, 77, 80, 83, 86, 89, 92, 96, 102, 105, 108, 111, 114, 117, 120, 123, 126, and 129 is also GRANTED.

Sanctions

As concerns motions to compel, the law only requires sanctions in the event that a party unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response. (C.C.P. §¿2030.300(d).) As such, any monetary sanctions granted are within the discretionary power of the Court as per C.C.P. § 2030.290. Additionally, it is customary to grant sanctions where a party has filed a motion to compel, and the other party fails to file an opposition. (C.R.C. Rule 3.1348(a).) 

Here, Defendant has submitted two motions to compel further responses while Plaintiff has provided no opposition. Defendant requests the Court grant sanctions in the amount of $2,510 for the Special Interrogatory Motion and $1,810.00 for the Form Interrogatory Motion. (Aslanyan Decl. ¶ 11.) Defendant’s counsel states that they expended 6 hours of attorney work in preparing and filing these motions at a rate of $350 an hour. (Id.) The Court finds that given the lack of opposition and the relatively simple nature of these discovery motions, sanctions in the amount of $2,100 would be proper. Sanctions will be awarded against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel jointly and severally.

--- 

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 

Avalon Bay Communities Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses came on regularly for hearing on February 23, 2024, 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 TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO 6.4 IS GRANTED. 

THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES NOS. 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 29, 32, 35, 38, 41, 44, 47, 50, 53, 56, 59, 62, 65, 68, 71, 74, 77, 80, 83, 86, 89, 92, 96, 102, 105, 108, 111, 114, 117, 120, 123, 126, AND 129 IS ALSO GRANTED.

FURTHER PRODUCTION IS ORDERED TO OCCUR WITHIN 30 DAYS.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED FOR DEFENDANT AS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,100.

SANCTIONS ARE TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.  

DATE: February 23, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles