Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 20STCV27102, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV27102    Hearing Date: December 13, 2023    Dept: 61

Defendant Robert J. Huizenga’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production from Plaintiffs California Equity Partners and Trancas Canyon Partners, LLC are GRANTED. Further responses within 30 days.

Defendant to give notice.

I.       MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010(a).) If a propounding party is not satisfied with the response served by a responding party, the former may move the court to compel further interrogatory responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)  The propounding party must demonstrate that the responses were incomplete, inadequate or evasive, or that the responding party asserted objections that are either without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a)(1)–(3); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 403.)

“A propounding party may demand a responding party to produce documents that are in their possession, custody or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) A party may likewise conduct discovery by propounding interrogatories to another party to be answered under oath. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010, subd. (a).) The responding party must respond to the production demand either by complying, by representing that the party lacks the ability to comply, or by objecting to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) The responding party must respond to the interrogatories by answering or objecting. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) If the responding party fails to serve timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to the production demand and interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

Defendant Robert Huizenga (Defendant) moves to compel further responses from Plaintiffs California Equity Partners LLC and Trancas Canyon Partners LLC (Plaintiffs) to Form Interrogatories No. 9.2 and 50.1(c), as well as Requests for Production No. 1–3, 5, 7, 16, 20, 21, and 25.

Interrogatory No. 9.2 asked Plaintiffs to identify any documents that supported the existence or amount of any item of damages identified in a previous interrogatory, to which Plaintiffs answered, “All of the documents produced by Defendant and Plaintiff herein.” (Separate Statement at p. 1.) Interrogatory No. 50.1 asked, for each agreement alleged in the pleadings, to provide, among other things, identification of all documents evidencing any part of the agreement. (Separate Statement at p. 2.) Plaintiff responded by noting “The Escrow Mart documents.” (Ibid.)

Requests for Production No. 1–3, 5, 7, 16, 20, 21, and 25 sought communications with or about parties to the transaction at issue, as well as documents related to the transaction. Plaintiffs responded to these requests with objections based on overbreadth and irrelevance, but concluded with the statement that “Plaintiff will produce documents related to the subject matter of this action, nos. 1–557.” (Separate Statement.)

Further responses are warranted. The interrogatories and requests for production here are related to the subject matter of this action and are supported by good cause. “Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) But when asked to identify pertinent documents related to items of damages or evidencing the agreement at issue, Plaintiff cited only broad collections of documents without specificity. Likewise, Plaintiffs’ responses to the document requests are insufficient, as offer neither a statement of compliance nor an identification of documents being withheld pursuant to objections. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ qualification that they will produce documents “related to the subject matter of this action” suggests that they are withholding unidentified documents based on a unilateral assessment of relevance not articulated in the requests. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.220; 2031.240.) These responses are noncompliant.

The motions are therefore GRANTED.