Judge Gregory Keosian, Case Number: 22STCV07878, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Raj Hair International Pvt Ltd.s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production and Form and Special Interrogatories from Defendants Extensions Plus, Inc. and Helene Stahl are GRANTED as to Requests for Production and Special Interrogatories, and DENIED as to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1.

“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.)

Plaintiff Raj Hair International Pvt., Ltd. (Plaintiff) moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production No. 1–23 from Defendant Helene Stahl (Stahl) and Request No. 1–54 and a large number of Interrogatories from Defendant Extensions Plus, Inc. (EP).

The Requests were served on November 14, 2022, and over the following months were responded to and supplemented, with the last iteration of responses — the second supplemental responses — sent on December 1, 2023. (Gonzales Decl. ¶¶ 2–10.) These requests sought documents and communications between Defendants EP and Stahl related to Plaintiff, shipments and payments from and to Plaintiff, the sources of funds (e.g. loans from specified financial institutions) by which Defendants would pay Plaintiff, Stahl’s ownership interest in EP, and documents related to EP’s relationships with particular individuals. (Separate Statement.) Defendants initially responded variously to each request, either stating that EP “has produced a CD with all documents and communications,” that no responsive documents existed, or only with objections.[1] (Separate Statement.) The second supplemental responses, however, consist of the same response:

Helene Stahl will continue to comply with this demand. All responsive documents in its possession, custody or control have been produced in a prior CD. Additionally, this response was supplemented with more documents that have been sent over in a large box.

(Separate Statement.) The responses from EP were essentially similar, with the addition of a reference to prior litigation between the parties. (Separate Statement.).

Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ production is missing large portions of the documents called for, and that Defendants failed to Bate-number their production. (Stahl Motion at pp. 16–18; EP Motion at pp. 16–18.)

Defendants in opposition argue that the motion’s notice incorrectly lists the grounds for the motion in the second, rather than the first paragraph, as required by CRC Rule 3.1110, and further seeks to incorporate all previously filed papers without specific reference to the date or title. Stahl also argues that the motion contains no index of exhibits. (Opposition at pp. 5–6.) Defendants have identified no conceivable prejudice resulting from these procedural defects, however, and they furnish no basis to deny the motions.

Defendants also contend that they have substantially complied with the requests by offering statements of compliance, inability to comply, and objections. (Opposition at pp. 4–6.) They also argue that because the motion contains no argument concerning their objections, the court should not rule upon them. (Opposition at pp. 6–7.)

Plaintiff presents no evidence as to whether any documents have been withheld from it in Defendants’ production. Although the motions state that various categories of documents have not been produced, Plaintiff presents no evidence or affidavit concerning the state of the production upon which the court could determine the veracity of the argument.

However, Defendants’ oppositions strongly suggest that a further response is required. Although Defendants’ latest responses consist of identical assurances that all responsive documents have already been produced in a “prior CD” and “large box,” Defendants in opposition to the present motion appear to place great stock in the service of prior objections and statements of inability to comply, to the point where it is unclear whether Defendants continue to rely upon these earlier responses as implied limitations upon later statements of compliance.

The remedy for this lack of clarity is found in Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280, subd. (a), which states: “Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” Plaintiff contends that the documents were produced “shoebox” fashion and without Bates numbers, leaving the task of identifying which documents correspond to which request to Plaintiff. (Motion at pp. 10–11.) Defendants in opposition do not dispute this characterization, but argue, mistakenly, that no authority requires further clarity. (Opposition at p. 7.) Per Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280, however, Defendants were required to identify which documents correspond to which request number. Such a requirement is all the more important when both Defendants have offered a “joint” production referring to the same batches of documents, even though served with different requests. Defendants must therefore provide a further response in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280.

Nor may Defendants rely on objections to limit their responses to these requests. Defendants’ initial responses were served late, and as such the objections were waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Defendants acknowledge the effect of tardy responses in opposition. (Opposition at pp. 6–7.) Nor have Defendants identified any documents being withheld pursuant to objections as required for any such withholding under Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.240.

Plaintiff seeks further responses from EP to Special Interrogatories, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140, 142, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156, 158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 168, and 189.

Plaintiff argues that Special Interrogatories No. 2 and 6 asked EP whether it contended it performed its obligations under a May 2018 agreement and to state all facts upon which it based such contention. EP responded that it denied the May 2018 agreement constituted an agreement, but in any event that it “was obligated not to pay [under any agreement] because Plaintiffs sent hair that was never asked for, sent hair that was defective and was told repeatedly by Plaintiff that Defendant did not have to pay.” (Separate Statement at pp. 3–7.) Plaintiff argues that this response is framed entirely in general terms and does not provide the facts sought. (Ibid.) EP in opposition does not contend that its factual responses are sufficient, but rather that no factual response was required because it denies the existence of an agreement. (Separate Statement at p. 4.) But this argument is unpersuasive, as EP may not contend in the alternative that it complied with the agreement, and fail to offer all facts called for supporting this alternative basis. A further response is therefore required.

Plaintiff argues that Special Interrogatory No. 189 requires a further response. This interrogatory seeks the “dollar amount of your working capital” for EP for each month or quarter from January 2017 to the present. (Separate Statement at p. 81.) EP responded with objections based on the amount of interrogatories and also trade secret protections. (Separate Statement at pp. 81–82.) EP in opposition does not support the trade secret objection, and has not moved for a protective order as to the amount of special interrogatories. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.040.) Moreover, EP’s objections have been waived by untimely service of responses. Interrogatory No. 189 therefore requires a further response.

Further responses are also required for the remaining interrogatories. Asked for facts supporting its contention that it complied with various given invoices, EP responded only with the terse statement that “Payment was sent to Plaintiff,” or “The hair that was sent was defective,” without further elaboration. Moreover, when asked to identify documents supporting any of the given contentions, EP only stated that it “has already provided emails, text messages and hundreds of other documents in its response to request for production to support its contention.” (See Separate Statement.) This response framed in the most general terms is not useful for identifying which document in EP’s production supports which contention.

Interrogatory No. 15.1 asks EP to state all facts and evidence supporting its denials and affirmative defenses. EP has provided factual narratives supporting its defenses, but Plaintiff seeks elaboration on particular factual averments made in these narratives:

· EP claims that Plaintiff “at one point” acknowledged that EP had been overpaying for defective hair and that EP “would be credited the monies they overpaid,” but Plaintiff argues that EP does not state when this acknowledgement happened, the amount of overpayment, or which of Plaintiff’s representatives made this representation (Motion at p. 14);

· EP claims that Plaintiff “told Defendants to not worry about paying and that they would continue to send hair even though Defendants did not place any orders,” and Plaintiff argues that the response does not include when the representation was made or who made it (Motion at pp. 14–15);

· EP asserts affirmative defenses based on a prior litigation between the parties, but while they have identified the case name and their prior attorney, they state that they do not know the case number and will provide it when it is found. (Separate Statement.) Plaintiff argues that EP has not yet provided the case number and should be compelled to do so. (Motion at p. 15.)

No further response is necessary as to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 This is a multi-part interrogatory seeking all facts, documents, and witnesses supporting each of EP’s affirmative defense, of which EP has asserted 45 in its answer. That portion of Plaintiff’s separate statement devoted to EP’s initial and supplemental responses to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 extends to 90 pages. EP’s responses provide substantial factual narratives supporting their affirmative defenses. If these responses leave lingering questions concerning the time and manner of particular representations common to multiple affirmative defenses, the matter may be more economically addressed by further interrogatories directed to those particular remaining questions. Rather than require another lengthy iteration of responses to this particular interrogatory, the parties’ resources would be better directed toward interrogatories seeking the precise factual matter that Plaintiff seeks — e.g. who made a particular representation, and at what time did this representation occur.

The motion is therefore GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories, and DENIED as to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1.

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).)

Plaintiff seeks $20,090 in sanctions in connection with its motion against EP, representing 44.6 hours of attorney work at $450 per hour. (Gonzales Decl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff also seeks $5,400.00 in connection with the motion against Stahl, representing 12 hours of attorney work at the same rate. (Gonzales Decl. ¶ 13.)

Sanctions are awarded against EP in the mount of $4,500 and Stahl in the amount of $1,800.

[1] Plaintiff contends that initial responses were due by agreement on March 20, 2023, and that Defendant’s responses were served tardily on March 21, 2023, unsigned by counsel. (Gonzales Decl. ¶¶ 3–4.)