Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV01821, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01821    Hearing Date: May 3, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify 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 argument is received.  

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

ALLEGATIONS: 

Cheryl Redden (Plaintiff) brings this action against Arnold Mooradian (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges that she was injured by virtue of Defendant’s negligent operation of a motor vehicle.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to her Form Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff requests that further responses be compelled without objections. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,750 and terminating sanctions against Defendant. Defendant opposes the motion and Plaintiff replies.

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

Separate Statement

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a) requires that a Motion to Compel Further Responses be accompanied by a Separate Statement providing all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a)-(c). Plaintiff’s motion is unaccompanied by such a Separate Statement, however C.C.P. § 2030.300(b)(2) states the Court court “may allow a moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.”

In this instance, the Court Plaintiff has outlined the discovery request in dispute such that a Separate Statement is not needed. It is clear from Plaintiff’s submissions that she only seeks further response to her Form Interrogatory No. 2.6.

Gov. Code § 70617

The Court finds Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff’s motion is not compliant with Government Code § 70617 to be unpersuasive. The Court does not see how Plaintiff’s motion is an improper combination of two separate sets of discovery requests. Plaintiff seeks further response to a singular Form Interrogatory to which Defendant has now rendered multiple responses.

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks further response to Form Interrogatory 2.6 which reads as follows:

State: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of your present employer or place of self-employment; and (b) the name, ADDRESS, dates of employment, job title, and nature of work for each employer or self-employment you have had from five years before the INCIDENT until today. (Aydin Decl., Exh. A.)

Defendant’s response to this interrogatory, after subsequent responses were rendered, is as follows:

Self employed. Owner/operator of gas station/car wash on 3402 Foothill Blvd., La Crescenta, CA 91214. Over five years. (Aydin Decl., Exh. B.)

Responding party is not an “employee” of the gas station located at 7101 Foothill Blvd., Tujunga, CA 91042, which is the gas station near the subject accident. Furthermore, the gas station located at 3402 Foothill Blvd., La Crescenta, CA 91214 is owned and operated by Foothill Petroleum, Inc. Responding Party is the President of Foothill Petroleum, Inc. (Aydin Decl. Exh. G.)

Plaintiff contends the above response remains incomplete because it omits information about the other gas stations Defendant owns. Plaintiff argues that Defendant testified at his deposition that he is self-employed and owns several gas stations. A review of the deposition testimony reveals that Defendant testified he is self employed and owns a gas station at 3402 Foothill Blvd., La Crescenta, CA 91214. (Exh. J, Mooradian Depo 9:19-11:7.) Defendant also testified that he owns a gas station at 7101 Foothill Boulevard, Tujunga, California. (Id.) Defendant testified that the La Crescenta gas station operates under the corporate name of Pinewood Petrol (Pinewood). (Id.)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant’s response to the interrogatory is incomplete in light of his deposition testimony to be persuasive. Defendant’s current response to the question identifies that he is self-employed as the President of Foothill Petroleum, Inc (Foothill). Despite Defendant’s deposition testimony that he owns a gas station which operates under Pinewood, he has provided no information regarding his position with that company. While Defendant may not be an employee of any individual gas station, it appears he does derive a livelihood from his participation in both Foothill and Pinewood. Furthermore, self-employed is an appropriate response for a non-business entity, such as a sole proprietorship but not for a legal entity such as a corporation.   The Defendant may still be both an employee of a corporation and its sole shareholder.  As such, the Court views the Defendant an employee of Foothill Petroleum, Inc. and any other legal entity for which he holds a position.  It follows that any answer to Form Interrogatory 2.6 which omits information regarding Pinewood is incomplete.

While not explicitly stated, it appears that Defendant objects to further production on grounds of relevance. Defendant argues that information regarding his ownership of gas stations not in close proximity to the incident is irrelevant to this action.

For discovery purposes, information is regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.” (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.) The Court finds Defendant’s ownership of other companies, such as Pinewood Petroleum, is relevant to Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant was acting within the scope of his employment during the time of the accident. The relevance of Defendant’s employment information is not limited by the physical proximity of any individual gas station to the incident. It stands to reason that the incident could have occurred while Plaintiff was acting in his capacity as the owner of any gas station, not just the one which is physically close to the incident. It seems just as likely that Defendant was acting in his capacity as President of Foothill as he was in his capacity as owner of Pinewood when the collision occurred.

In short, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently shown Defendant’s response to Form Interrogatory 2.6 to be incomplete. While Defendant has provided information as to Foothill, his responses are silent as to Pinewood despite his clear involvement with the company. Further, Defendant’s objection on the grounds of relevance is without merit.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further response to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatory 2.6 is GRANTED.

Sanctions

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (C.C.P. §¿2030.300(d).)

Here, the Court finds Defendant has opposed this motion without substantial justification. Defendant’s opposition consists primarily of arguments along procedural lines which were ultimately unmerited. Further, the Court finds Defendant’s objection of relevance was presented without substantial argument.

The request for sanctions of $1,750 does not include a breakdown of the hours and hourly rate that was expended.  As such, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of one hour of attorney time at $350 per hour, plus the filing fee of $60 for a total of $410. In the Court’s experience such an amount is consistent with the effort involved in bringing a motion to compel further responses as to a single discovery demand. Sanctions are granted against Defendant and his 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 

Cheryl Redden’s Motion to Compel Further Responses came on regularly for hearing on May 3, 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 PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORY NO 2.6 IS GRANTED.

FURTHER RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $410 AS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND HIS COUNSEL JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY.

SANCTIONS TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.  

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  May 3, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles