Judge Gregory Keosian, Case 20STCV34135 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 20STCV34135, Date: 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV34135 Hearing Date: February 21, 2023 Dept: 61

Defendants David S. Sardy and Kira M. Sardy’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production from Plaintiff James Arend II are GRANTED. Further code compliant responses within 30 days. Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff and his counsel in the amount of $1850 and $120 in filing fees.

Defendants to provide 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 party may demand that any other party produce . . . a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010(b).) The demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).) “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand,” and “[t]he motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b).)

Defendants David S. Sardy and Kira M. Sardy (Defendants) move to compel further responses to Request for Production No. 16, Special Interrogatory No. 11, and Form Interrogatories No. 314.1, 314.6, 321.5, 321.6, and 321.12. Request No. 16 seeks communications between Plaintiff and subcontractors relating to requests for additional time or money for their work on the relevant property. (Separate Statement at p. 2.) Special Interrogatory No. 11 asked Plaintiff to identify all documents that he contends constitute modifications to the contract at issue. (Separate Statement at p. 2.) Plaintiff responded to both of these requests by identifying almost the entirety of Plaintiff’s document production, which Defendant claims is non-responsive. Plaintiff in opposition states that it has directed Defendants to all responsive documents, and has provided an index of the production to assist in its navigation. (Opposition at pp. 4–5.)

Further responses are required to Request No. 16 and Special Interrogatory No. 11. Documents produced pursuant to requests for production must reference the specific request to which they respond. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.280, subd. (a).) And responses to interrogatories must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220, subd. (a).) Plaintiff’s responses to these discovery requests, which sought communications with subcontractors and contract modifications, referred to the virtual entirety of Defendant’s document production. Such responses did not assist in the identification of responsive or relevant documents. The motions are GRANTED as to Request No. 16 and Special Interrogatory No. 11.

The same pattern of response also appears in regard to Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories No. 314.1, 321.5, 321.6, and 321.12. Here, asked to identify documents constituting or modifying the agreement at issue, or identify the terms of the relevant contract, or to identify the work performed under the contract, Plaintiff instead referred to broad swaths of its document production, purporting to rely on Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.230. But that statute requires interrogatory responses that rely on document references to “be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained,” and references of such great generality as Plaintiff presented here are not code-compliant. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230.)

A further response is also required as to Form Interrogatory No. 314.6. This interrogatory asked Plaintiff to identify whether any provision of the contract was ambiguous, and if so to explain why. Plaintiff’s response identified “Section 12,” but did not explain why it was ambiguous. (Separate Statement at p. 10.)

Accordingly, the motions to compel further are GRANTED.

II. SANCTIONS

Statute provides that the court shall impose sanctions upon a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or requests for admission, absent substantial justification otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300, subd. (d); 2031.310, subd. (h); 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Defendants seek $4,400.00 in sanctions, representing 12 hours of attorney work at $370 and $350 per hour, plus two $60 filing fees. (Sire Decl. ¶¶ 17–18.) Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff and his counsel in the amount of $1850 and $120 in filing fees.