Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 22CHCV01034, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV01034    Hearing Date: January 28, 2025    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 01-28-25

Case # 22CHCV01034, Bruch, et al. v. Prince, et al.

Trial Date: None set.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Plant Works Group, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTIES: Plaintiffs  Sarah Fry Bruch and Gregory Bruch

RELIEF REQUESTED

Order compelling Plaintiff David Jess Bruch to provide verified, objection-free responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and $860.00 in monetary sanctions.

RULING: The parties are ordered to meet and confer, and Defendant is ordered to file a proof of service for Form Interrogatories, (Set One).

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiffs Sarah Fry Bruch, Gregory Bruch, (Plaintiffs), and David Jess Bruch, through his successors in interest Sarah Fry Bruch and Gregory Bruch, filed this wrongful death action on November 1, 2022.  On May 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) which included several identified Doe defendants, including defendant Plant Works Group, Inc. (Defendant).

On September 9, 2024, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Set One (FROGs) on Plaintiffs’ counsel of record.  Responses were due October 11, 2024.  (Declaration of Stephen Bonkowski, ¶ 2, Exh. 1.)  Responses were never sent.

On October 16, 2024, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a meet and confer letter saying objections were waived and setting a new deadline for October 23, 2024.  (Bonkowski Dec., ¶ 3, Exh. 2.) 

On October 18, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel, stating he never received the original discovery request and asked counsel to send copies and to confirm the discovery was served.  (Bonkowski Dec., ¶ 4, Exh. 3.)  That same day, Defendant’s counsel’s paralegal sent an email to Plaintiffs’ counsel that clarified that his co-counsel had been served with discovery requests.  (Bonkowski Dec., ¶ 5, Exh. 4.)  Defendant’s counsel then gave Plaintiffs a 30-day extension to provide code-compliant responses by November 19, 2024.  (Bonkowski Dec., ¶ 6.)  Responses were not served by this date.

On November 21, 2024, Defendant’s counsel sent a second “meet and confer” letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel noting that Plaintiffs failed to produce responses.  (Bonkowski Dec., ¶ 8, Exh. 5.)  Defendant provided another extension to December 5, 2024 and stated it would file a motion to compel if Plaintiffs failed to comply with discovery obligations.  (Bonkowski Dec., ¶¶ 9-10.)  As of December 6, 2024, no responses were served.

On December 6, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to compel FROG responses from plaintiff David Jess Bruch.  Plaintiffs filed an opposition on January 21, 2025.[1]  Defendant replied on January 21 and 22, 2025.

MEET AND CONFER

A motion to compel form interrogatory responses must include a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues mentioned in the motion before filing.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1), 2016.040.)  In Department 43, “meet and confer” means in person or via phone, not by letter or email.  (Department F43 Courtroom Information, at p. 2.)

On October 16, 2024, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a meet and confer letter saying objections were waived and setting a new deadline for October 23, 2024.  (Bonkowski Dec., ¶ 3, Exh. 2.)  Defendant further extended the deadline to serve discovery responses to November 19, 2024.  (Bonkowski Dec., ¶ 6.)  No responses were served by the new deadline.  On November 21, 2024, Defendant’s counsel sent a second meet and confer letter granting Plaintiffs another extension to December 5, 2024 and stated it would file a motion to compel if Plaintiffs failed to comply with discovery obligations.  (Bonkowski Dec., ¶¶ 8-10, Exh. 5.)  As of December 6, 2024, no responses were served.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Defendant argues that because the remaining Plaintiffs in this case, plaintiff David Jess Bruch’s successors in interest, failed to provide code-compliant responses by any of the three (3) deadline extensions, the court should grant this motion.

In opposition, remaining Plaintiffs argue the court should deny Defendant’s motion because Defendant did not validly serve its discovery and plaintiff David Bruch is deceased and cannot be served with or respond to discovery.  Plaintiffs note that Defendant filed a proof of service with this motion that shows it properly served Plaintiffs’ counsel of record Chance J. Pardon, Esq. (see Exh. 1, at p. 11 - chance@lawbreiter.com.), but the email thread where Defendant originally served the FROGs shows that Defendant only served Brian J. Breiter (see Exh. 2, at p 3 - brian@lawbreiter.com.).  Plaintiffs’ counsel states he repeatedly informed Defendant’s counsel that all electronic service should be served on chance@lawbreiter.com, brian@lawbreiter.com, kamesha@lawbreiter.com, and tatiana@lawbreiter.com.  (Declaration of Chance J. Pardon, ¶ 3.)  Defendant’s counsel has also served Plaintiffs’ attorney Chance Pardon at an email address at another firm.

In reply, Defendant notes that the opposition is untimely, procedurally invalid, and failed to cite legal authority to support its arguments.  Plaintiffs were validly served, and Defendant granted Plaintiffs multiple response extensions even after Plaintiffs’ counsel claimed he never received the FROGs on September 9, 2024.  Further, Plaintiffs’ argument that plaintiff David J. Bruch could not be served because he is deceased is without merit because Defendant served the decedent’s successor in interest: plaintiffs Sarah Frye Bruch and Gregory Bruch.

ANALYSIS

A propounding party may move to compel responses to form interrogatories where the responding party fails to provide any responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  The propounding party must show the interrogatories were properly served, that the time to respond expired, and no response has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)  The responding party must serve responses within 30 days after the interrogatories are served or according to an agreed upon deadline extension.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.270.)  Failing to respond within these time limits waives objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) 

The Court has reviewed the moving papers and cannot decide this motion on the merits at this time.  It is unclear whether Plaintiffs’ counsel was served FROGs (Set One) even after Plaintiffs’ counsel stated he never received service on September 9, 2024.  After reviewing the proofs of service filed in Defendant’s moving papers, it appears Defendant failed to electronically serve all email addresses Plaintiffs cite in their opposition.  Defendant’s motion also does not include a proof of service for the FROGs after Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Defendant’s counsel that he never received the initial requests on September 9, 2024.  It also appears the parties did not meet and confer directly as required by the Court’s Department F43 order.

Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer in person, by phone, or by video conference, and Defendant is ordered to file a proof of service for the FROGs.

CONCLUSION ORDER

1.  The parties are ordered to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference.

2.  Defendant is ordered to file a proof of service within ten (10) days of the date of this order.

Defendant to give notice.