Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24NNCV02008, Date: 2025-06-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV02008    Hearing Date: June 13, 2025    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY 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 required 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: 

Pedro Nunez (Plaintiff) brings this action against Augusto Coen-Brown (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached a contract between related to the joint operation of a Puerto Rican restaurant located at 5775 Lankershim Blvd., North Hollywood and currently bearing the name Mofongos.

Before the Court are two motions to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Form and Special Interrogatories. Defendant, in pro per, opposes the motions and argue his supplemental responses have rendered them moot. Plaintiff replies that no verified supplemental responses have ever been served.

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

In making these motions, Plaintiff has asserted that the objections rendered by Defendant are both unmerited and overly generalized as per C.C.P. § 2030.300(a). As the opposing party, Defendant bears the burden to demonstrate that each of his objections to Plaintiffs interrogatories is meritorious such that no further response can be compelled. By neglecting to substantively brief any of the objections in his opposing memorandum, Defendant has necessarily failed this burden.

Defendant’s memorandum in opposition contains no discussion of any objections. Instead, Defendant opposes the motions on grounds that (1) Plaintiff failed to properly meet and confer prior to bringing the motions and (2) that his supplemental responses render the motions moot. The Court finds neither of these argument persuasive.

What level of effort suffices to demonstrate a good faith attempt to meet and confer is variable based upon the circumstances of each case. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 432.) Logic dictates that in cases where the discovery disputes at issue are smaller in number and relatively straightforward, less stringent meet and confer efforts are required. (Id.) Conversely, where the issues at play are numerous and concern more complicated matters, a more robust form of meet and confer may be properly required. (Id.)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel reached out via both email and phone communication in an attempt to informally resolve the issues prior to bringing these motions. Plaintiff sent a detailed email outlining the issues with the responses, all identified by number, in advance of the parties telephonic meet and confer. Afterward, Plaintiff’s counsel was assured by Defendant that supplemental responses would be forthcoming that addressed these concerns.

Instead, Defendant provided unverified responses to some of the interrogatories via his February 7th email. Even were these responses verified, they do not appear to address any of Plaintiff’s concerns. For example, in further response to Form Interrogatory 2.7, Defendant maintained his objections and stated the following:

Notwithstanding this objection and without waiving the same, Defendant is willing to provide information regarding relevant professional training or certifications if Plaintiff can establish a direct nexus between the requested educational background and the claims at issue.

(Goharchin Decl. Exh. 7 at p. 82.)

This statement is not a substantive response to the interrogatory, rather it is a further objection on the grounds of relevance.

As concerns the supplemental responses as a whole, the Court does not find that they moot the instant motions. Both the February 7 and May 16 supplemental responses are unaccompanied by any verification, rendering them invalid. (See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [“Unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”].)

Accordingly, the motions to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Form and Special Interrogatories are GRANTED.

Sanctions

The Court has discretion to impose a monetary sanction against a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct. (C.C.P. § 2023.030(a).) Sanctions are only mandatory as 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), 2031.310(h).)

Here, the Court finds Defendant was without justification in opposing these motions. Although Defendant represents himself in this matter and lacks the experience of an attorney in dealing with discovery matters, he was not substantially justified in his belief that the February 7th and May 16th responses were dispositive of these motions. Further, Defendant did not substantively brief any of his objections in opposition, despite the fact that his supplemental responses maintained all of them.  

Accordingly, the Court awards sanctions in favor of Plaintiff as against Defendant in the amount of $1,120. This amount in commensurate with two hours of attorney work at the stated hourly rate of $500, plus the $60 filing fee for each motion. (Goharchin Decl. ¶ 12.) In the Court’s experience, such an amount is reasonable to compensate Plaintiff in being forced to bring these motions.

--- 

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 

Pedro Nunez’s Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses came on regularly for hearing on June 13, 2025, 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 MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES ARE GRANTED.

FURTHER RESPONSES TO BE MADE NO LATER THAN 30 DAYS.

THE COURT AWARDS SANCTIONS IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AS AGAINST DEFENDANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,120.  SANCTIONS TO BE PAID NO LATER THAN 30 DAYS.

PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.