Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 20TRCV00765, Date: 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20TRCV00765    Hearing Date: October 11, 2022    Dept: B

PROCEEDINGS

Thrive Social Equity Management, LLC v. David Blatt, et al.

20TRCV00765

1. David Blatt, et al.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One 

2. David Blatt, et al.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One  

    

   TENTATIVE RULING

    

               David Blatt, et al.’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, are deemed moot.

    

               Background

    

               Plaintiff filed its Complaint on October 22, 2020.  Plaintiff alleges the following facts.  Plaintiff entered into negotiations to attempt to enter into a joint venture agreement by which the parties would engage in the business of cannabis dispensaries.  The agreement was never completed. Thus, Plaintiff filed this action for Declaratory Relief seeking a judicial declaration that Defendants Henry Hay and David Blatt have no interests in an agreement with Defendants to operate cannabis dispensaries. Defendants filed First Amended Cross-Complaints on August 26, 2022, alleging that they are being deprived their interests in the joint venture.

    

               Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents

              

               Where responses to interrogatories have been served but the requesting party believes that they are deficient because the answers are evasive or incomplete, or, because an objection is without merit, that party may move for an order compelling a further response.  CCP § 2030.300(a).  Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days after service of verified responses in question, or any verified supplemental responses.  CCP § 2030.300(c).  The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration in compliance with CCP § 2016.040.  CCP § 2030.300(b).

    

               A party responding to an inspection demand shall respond to each demand with one of the following:  a statement the party will comply with the demand, a representation the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand, or an objection.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).)  A response to an inspection demand may be inadequate because it is evasive or incomplete; contains an incomplete statement of compliance; an inadequate, incomplete, or evasive representation of inability to comply; or meritless or overly general objections to a demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

    

                  If a demanding party believes the responding party responded inadequately, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)  “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)   

    

               Meet and Confer

    

               Defendants set forth meet and confer declarations in substantial compliance with CCP §§ 2030.300(b) and 2031.310(b)(2).  (Declarations, Jeremy T. Kamras.)

    

               Motions to Compel

    

               Defendants move to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One.  Defendants argue that the responses are evasive, not full and complete, and that the objections are boilerplate and without merit.

    

               Defendants’ motions are moot because Plaintiff served further responses and additional document production to the discovery requests on September 19, 2022. (Declarations, Tim Hsu, ¶¶ 4-5.)  With the Reply, Defendants argue that the further responses and document production remains deficient.  However, the propriety of these further responses is not at issue with these motions.  Should moving party contend that the further responses remain deficient in some manner, the parties are encouraged to engage in the meet and confer process as to these further responses.

    

               Sanctions

    

               Defendants’ requests for monetary sanctions are denied.  The Court determines that the imposition of sanctions under these circumstances is unjust.

    

               Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.