Judge Gary I. Micon, Case Number: 23CHCV00273, Date: 2024-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV00273, Date: 2024-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV00273 Hearing Date: April 8, 2024 Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 4-8-24

Case #23CHCV00273, Sylvia Leon vs. Samuel Pineda, et al.

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Sylvia Leon

RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed

RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s specially prepared interrogatories, as well as sanctions

RULING: Motion to compel further responses is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Sylvia Leon (Plaintiff) filed her complaint in this action on January 31, 2023. She alleged causes of action for fraud, quiet title, cancellation of deeds, and declaratory relief. Her complaint was based on allegations that a grant deed dated May 22, 2018, was prepared by or at the request of Defendants Samuel Pineda and Samuel Eduardo Pineda that purportedly conveyed the real property located at 13493 Filmore Street, Pacoima, CA from Plaintiff’s mother to Defendants. Plaintiff’s mother subsequently died, and Plaintiff is the administrator of her estate that consists of the property.

Defendants filed their answer to the complaint on June 9, 2023. On August 9, 2023, Plaintiff served a first set of specially prepared interrogatories on Defendant Samuel Eduardo Pineda (Defendant). On September 22, 2023, Defendant served responses to the interrogatories that only consisted of objections that Plaintiff argues are not meritorious. Much like Samuel Pineda’s responses, Defendant objected to every single interrogatory that Plaintiff served and did not respond substantively to any of them. Shortly after that, on September 25, 2023, Defendant substituted out his attorney and became self-represented.

Plaintiff attempted to confer with Defendant regarding Defendant’s responses via a meet and confer letter dated September 25, 2023, but Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s letter.

On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed and served this motion to compel further responses to specially prepared interrogatories and for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $1,411.65.

As of April 3, 2024, Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed. Any opposition to the motion was

required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (CCP § 1005(b).)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not provide meritorious responses to any of Plaintiff’s specially prepared interrogatories. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s interrogatories are not specific and instead are too general. Plaintiff requested the identity of witnesses and facts that Defendant contends support each of his affirmative defenses. Instead, Defendant answered with nothing but objections.

The Discovery Act allows “[a]ny party [to] obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.” (CCP § 2030.010(a).) “An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based.” (CCP § 2031.030(b).) The responding party must then respond separately to each interrogatory with either an answer containing the information sought to be discovered, an exercise of the party’s option to produce writings, or an objection. (CCP § 2030.210.) If the demanding party deems that “(1) [a]n answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) [a]n exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; [or] (3) [a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general,” the demanding party may seek an order compelling Code-complaint responses. (CCP § 2030.300(a)(1)-(3).)

A party is required to provide responses to interrogatories that are “as complete and

straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (CCP § 2030.220(a).) “If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (CCP § 2030.220(b).)

“If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (CCP § 2030.220(c).)

Objections must be specific, and a motion to compel lies where objections are “too general”. (CCP § 2030.300(a)(3); Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (Amazing Technologies Corp.) (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516 (objecting party subject to sanctions for “boilerplate” objections).)

In response to every single specially prepared interrogatory, Defendant responded by stating:

“Responding Party objects to the extent that the request calls for the disclosure of privileged attorney-client communications and information otherwise protected from discovery on the grounds of privilege, work-product privileged information and/or information protected by any other applicable privilege. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that the request is vague and ambiguous. Responding Party objects to this request due to relevance. The requested information is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that the requested information is equally accessible to both parties.”

This answer is not complete and straightforward. It does not answer Plaintiff’s interrogatories in the slightest. It is a boilerplate objection that was copied and pasted to every single answer. Defendant cannot simply restate the same answer over and over in this manner. Defendant must answer each interrogatory individually to the best of his ability.

Plaintiff’s interrogatories, which related to Defendant’s asserted affirmative defenses, were reasonable. Defendant must take the time to answer these interrogatories rather than just object to them.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant must submit verified, code-compliant responses to all of Plaintiff’s specially prepared interrogatories. In the event that Defendant still objects to any of them, Defendant must give specific reasons for that objection, or if Defendant cannot comply with the request, Defendant must give a statement that he made a reasonable and good faith effort to comply. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the specially prepared interrogatories is granted.

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(d)-(f); CCP § 2031.310(h).)

Plaintiff has requested sanctions in the total amount of $1,411.65 against Defendant. The amount was based on 4.5 hours at $300 an hour and $61.65 in costs. (Forry Decl., ¶ 10.) One hour of the 4.5 hours was for time anticipated for drafting a response to the opposition. Because no opposition and no reply were filed, the Court will only impose sanctions for 3.5 hours at $300. That makes the total amount of sanctions $1,111.65 ($1,050 plus the filing fee).

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant is granted in the total amount of $1,111.65.

ORDER

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

2. Defendant Samuel Eduardo Pineda is ordered to serve supplemental responses within thirty (30) days.

3. Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions in the total amount of $1,111.65. Defendant is ordered to pay these sanctions to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days.