Judge Gregory Keosian, Case 21STCV04080 2023-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Defendants Gagandeep Lakhmna and 5050 Pico, LLC’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production from Plaintiff BMC West, LLC are GRANTED as to the requests for production, and Plaintiff is directed to identify the requests to which each document corresponds, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280, subd. (a). The motion is DENIED as to the form interrogatories. No sanctions are awarded.

“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.)

Defendants Gagandeep Lakhmna and 5050 Pico, LLC (Defendants) move to compel further responses to Requests for Production No. 1–28 and Form Interrogatories No. 323.1–323.10. The document requests seek all documents and communications supporting Plaintiff BMC West, LLC’s causes of action, as well as other records of communication, payment, and contracts related to the project at issue. Although Plaintiff objected to certain of the requests for overbreadth and seeking attorney work-product, Plaintiff promised production of documents, which Defendant contends has not taken place. (Separate Statement.) The Form Interrogatories, meanwhile, seek information concerning the design history and shipping of products that Plaintiff sold pursuant to the agreements at issue. (Separate Statement.) Plaintiff objected to these interrogatories on the grounds that this is a collection action not having to do with defective products.

Plaintiff’s objections to the form interrogatories are well taken. These interrogatories concern warranties, designs, shipping, installation, and defects in any products that were supplied. Defendants argue that these interrogatories are relevant because Plaintiff seeks contractual renumeration for the supply of construction parts, and because these interrogatories are contained on the Judicial Council’s form interrogatories for construction litigation. (Separate Statement.) But Defendants articulate no theory of Plaintiff’s case or their own defense for which the design or defects of any parts supplied has any bearing. The mere fact that these interrogatories are included on the “Construction Litigation” form does not make them related to the subject matter of this case.

Further responses are warranted, however, to the requests for production. Although the parties dispute the validity of Plaintiff’s overbreadth and work-product objections, the primary contention between the parties is the manner of Plaintiff’s responsive document production. Defendants in their motion contend that Plaintiff produced no documents as promised, and Plaintiff in opposition contends that documents were served with the filing of the opposition. (Apanian Decl. ¶ 12.) However, Plaintiff in reply contends that the documents produced are not “identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond,” as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280, subd. (a). (Reply at p. 3.) This corresponds with the responses to the requests themselves, which state that they will be produced as they are kept in the ordinary course of business, which is no longer a permissible manner of production under Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280. A further response is necessary for this reason.[1]

Defendants further argue that Plaintiff has failed to produce any “communications” in response to Requests No. 20, 25, and 27. (Reply at p. 3.) But Defendants concede that Plaintiff has produced a demand for payment and copies of invoices. (Reply at p. 3.) Defendants present no evidence that any further communications exist that ought to be produced.

Accordingly, the motions to compel further are GRANTED as to the requests for production, and Plaintiff is directed to identify which requests to which each document corresponds, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280, subd. (a). The motion is DENIED as to the form interrogatories.

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 $1,560.00 in connection with each of the motions here, for a total sanctions request of $3,120.00, representing twelve hours of attorney work at $250 per hour, plus two $60 filing fees. (Schoen Decl. ¶ 6.) No sanctions are awarded, as the motions were opposed with substantial justification, and Defendants have only obtained partial relief.

[1] Plaintiff contends that Defendants did not adequately meet and confer before bringing either motion to compel further. (Opposition at pp. 2–3.) The evidence indicates, however, that Plaintiff never responded to a meet and confer letter served upon it relating to the discovery at issue. (Schoen Decl. ¶ 4.) Further meet and confer did not take place because Plaintiff did not participate. The lack of further efforts thus does not serve as a basis to deny the motion.