Judge Gary I. Micon, Case Number: 23CHCP00019, Date: 2024-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCP00019, Date: 2024-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCP00019 Hearing Date: February 1, 2024 Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 2-1-24

Case #23CHCP00019

Trial Date: 2-18-25

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Albert Gonzalez, Jr.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Daniel Torres

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff’s further responses to certain discovery responses, as well as sanctions

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On August 4, 2023, Defendant Albert Gonzalez, Jr., (Defendant) propounded an initial set of discovery, including form interrogatories and requests for admission, on Plaintiff Daniel Torres (Plaintiff). Plaintiff denied all 35 requests for admission. Form Interrogatory Number 17.1 requested that Plaintiff provide facts supporting his answers to the requests for admission, specifically requests 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 27. Initially, Plaintiff responded by saying “not applicable.” After meeting and conferring, Plaintiff provided supplemental responses, but Defendant argues that those responses remain inadequate.

In the separate statement to Plaintiff’s opposition, Plaintiff appears to attempt to expand upon some of his answers. However, Defendant argues in reply that these responses are not in the proper format and are unverified.

The following is an example of one of the responses at issue:

Form Interrogatory Number 17.1 (Related to Bequest Numbers 17, 19-24 & 27)

Is your response to each Request for Admission served with these Interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission:

(a) State the number of the request;

(b) State all facts upon which you base your response;

(d) Identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and stat the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.

Request for Admission Number 17:

Admit that YOU did not suffer any damages as a result of any actions by Evangelina Gonzalez.

Response to Request for Admission Number 17:

Deny.

Response to Form Interrogatory #17.1 Related to Request for Admission Number 17:

(a) 17

(b) The extent of the damage is unknown.

(c) Daniel Torres 621 Harps St. San Fernando, CA 91340, Albert Gonzalez Jr. 13351 Bradley Ave Sylmar, CA 91342, Evangelina Gonzalez 27545 Trail Ridge Road Canyon Country, CA 91387

(d) See documents produced in discovery, TORRES-000067-000278.

The part of the response to which Defendant takes issue is “(b) The extent of the damage is unknown.” Plaintiff argues that this is not responsive to the request to “State all facts upon which you base your response.” Rather than stating facts that provide a basis for damages, Plaintiff says that the extent of the damages is unknown. This is not responsive to Defendant’s question.

All of Plaintiff’s responses that are at issue were answered in this manner. For instance, Request for Admission Number 19 was “Admit that Albert Gonzalez, Jr. is not liable to YOU for Breach of Fiduciary Duty.” Plaintiff denied the request. Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory #17.1 Related to Request for Admission Number 19, subpart (b) was “Albert Gonzalez, Jr. is liable to me for breach of fiduciary duty.” Once again, Plaintiff does not provide any facts for why Mr. Gonzalez is not liable.

Further, Request for Admission Number 20 was “Admit that YOU have no facts to support your claim that Albert Gonzalez, Jr. breached his Fiduciary Duty to YOU.” Request for Admission Number 21 states “Admit that YOU have not suffered any damages as a result of Albert Gonzalez, Jr. breaching his fiduciary duty to you related to ALDA Management, Inc.” Plaintiff denied both of these requests and answered subpart (b) for both by saying “Albert Gonzalez Jr. issued payments to unauthorized individuals, issued payments to himself for unknown reasons, exposed the company to unnecessary risks and engaged in corporate waste.” While these appear to be facts, Plaintiff did not state which facts indicate that Mr. Gonzalez breached his fiduciary duty and which facts indicate that Plaintiff was damaged as a result. More specificity is required for these answers.

Defendant also seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,600.00 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record for abuse of the discovery process.

Defendant filed his motion on November 8, 2023. Plaintiff filed his opposition on January 19, 2024. Defendant filed his reply on January 22, 2024.

RULING: The motion to compel further responses is granted.

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, Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s interrogatories are evasive and incomplete. Rather than providing facts supporting his answer, for each response Plaintiff simply restates the request for admission that he is denying. More specificity is also required for answers 20 and 21. Therefore, Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1 as it relates to Requests for Admission 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 27. Plaintiff’s responses must include facts that support his denial of the requests for admission.

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).)

Defendant has requested sanctions in the amount of $1,660.00 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record for Plaintiff’s incomplete and evasive discovery responses. The amount was based on Defendant’s counsel spending 2 hours preparing each of the motions at $400.00 an hour, plus an anticipated two hours reviewing the opposition, preparing a reply, and appearing at the hearing, as well as the $60.00 filing fee. (Zeidman Decl., p. 13:10-20.) This is a reasonable amount for the sanctions.

Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record is granted in the total amount of $1,660.00.

ORDER

1. Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is granted.

2. Plaintiff is ordered to serve supplemental responses within twenty (20) days.

3. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record are ordered to pay sanctions in the total amount of $1,660.00. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record are ordered to pay these sanctions to Defendant’s counsel within twenty (20) days.