Judge Gary I. Micon, Case Number: 21CHCV00423, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 21CHCV00423, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00423 Hearing Date: March 5, 2024 Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 3-5-24

Case #21CHCV00423, WIN Partners, LLC vs. World Tech Toys, Inc.

Trial Date: 5-5-25

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff WIN Partners, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed

RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendants’ further responses to certain discovery responses, as well as sanctions

RULING: Motion to compel further responses is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff WIN Partners, LLC (Plaintiff) propounded a set of form interrogatories on Defendants Kevork Kouyoumjian, World Tech Toys, Inc., and World Trading 23, Inc. (Defendants), requesting that they respond only to Form Interrogatory 15.1. After Defendants served incomplete responses, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further interrogatories on June 27, 2023. On July 24, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and required Defendants to serve supplemental responses and pay sanctions in the amount of $400 within 30 days. Though Defendants failed to pay the sanctions, Defendants did serve supplemental responses. After Plaintiff sent Defendants a meet and confer letter regarding the deficiencies in the supplemental responses, Defendants served a second set of supplemental responses on September 29, 2023.

The following is the interrogatory at issue:

Form Interrogatory 15.1:

Identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings and for each:

(a) state all facts upon which you base the denial or special affirmative defense;

(b) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and

(c) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.

Plaintiff has several issues with Defendants second supplemental responses. First, Defendants failed to provide updated verifications. Defendants failed to identify the facts, witnesses, and documents supporting each of their denials. Instead, they grouped the denials into categories and did not separately identify the supporting facts for each of their 33 affirmative defenses. Next, while Defendants listed the names of some people who have knowledge of the facts, they also listed general categories like “other employees” and “clients/potential” rather than identifying specific individuals.

Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Defendants and Defendants’ counsel of record for costs and attorney fees incurred in connection with this motion.

Plaintiff filed this motion on October 10, 2023. No opposition has been filed.

ANALYSIS

Form Interrogatories

To compel a further response to interrogatories, the movant can show that: (1) the responding party’s answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete (CCP § 2030.300(a)(1)); (2) the responding party’s exercise of the option to produce documents in response to an interrogatory was unwarranted or the required specification of those documents was inadequate (CCP § 2030.300(a)(2)); and (3) the responding party’s objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general (CCP § 2030.300(a)(3); see, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550 (Williams) [defendant’s argument that plaintiff was required to establish good cause or prove merits of underlying claim before propounding interrogatories without merit]).

In this case, Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatory are incomplete. The first responses to the interrogatory were simply objections. The current responses attempted to answer the interrogatory, but they are clearly inadequate.

Defendants must address the facts supporting each affirmative defense individually rather than group them into categories. Defendant must also identify the specific witnesses with knowledge of those facts, rather than using general terms like “client” and “other employees”.

Finally, Defendants must identify which documents support which affirmative defenses, and Defendants must also state who possesses the documents if they are not already in Plaintiff’s possession. Currently, Defendants identify the documents with broad categories such as “communications” between parties and “records/documents” as they pertain to certain transactions or other items. Defendants must identify the particular documents, rather than listing them as the broad categories.

Sanctions

CCP § 2023.030 authorizes the Court to issue sanctions against a party engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. Failure to respond to discovery, evasive responses, and objections lacking substantial justification are “misuses of the discovery process.” (CCP § 2023.010, subd. (d)-(f).)

Plaintiff has requested sanctions in the total amount of $5,686.65 against Defendants and Defendants’ counsel of record for Plaintiff’s incomplete and evasive discovery responses. The amount was based on $3,125.00 in attorney fees (at $625.00 an hour), $61.65 in costs, and an expected $2,500.00 for reviewing the opposition, preparing a reply, and attending the hearing. (Bernet Decl., ¶¶ 25-26.) Because no opposition and no reply were filed, the Court will only impose an additional $625.00 for attorney fees for the hearing on this matter. That makes the total amount of sanctions $3,811.65.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendants and Defendants’ counsel of record is granted in the total amount of $3,811.65.

Issue, Evidence, and/or Terminating Sanctions

Plaintiff requested these sanctions in the alternative. The Court declines to impose any issue, evidence, and/or terminating sanctions at this time. However, should Defendants still fail to provide complete responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, the Court would consider imposing these sanctions.

ORDER

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is granted.

2. Defendants are ordered to serve supplemental responses within thirty (30) days.

3. Defendants and Defendants’ counsel of record are ordered to pay sanctions in the total amount of $3,811.65. Defendants and Defendants’ counsel of record are ordered to pay these sanctions to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days.