Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV13404, Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13404    Hearing Date: March 27, 2024    Dept: 61

Defendant Agustin Quiroz’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production and Special Interrogatories from Plaintiff Chantal E. Estive are GRANTED as to Special Interrogatories No. 6,7, and 10, and otherwise DENIED.

Sanctions are awarded against Defendant and his counsel in the amount of $2,100.

Plaintiff 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 Agustin Quiroz (Defendant) moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories No. 1–8 and 10–14, and Requests for Production No. 1–13 and 17, from Plaintiff Chantal G. Estive (Plaintiff). This discovery has been subject to four separate iterations, as Plaintiff has served responses, supplemental responses, and second and third supplemental responses. The court considers each request in turn.

No further response is required as to Requests for Production No. 1, which seeks “all DOCUMENTS between YOU and DEFENDANT, from January to March of 2019.” (Separate Statement at p. 1.) Plaintiff has struggled to respond to this request, first stating that no documents have ever existed, then referring to a range of Bates-numbers, then identifying another range of Bates numbers referring to “communications” with Defendant, and finally stating that after a diligent search no documents could be found. (Separate Statement at pp. 1–4.) The difficulty likely consists of the opacity of the request, as it is unclear precisely (or even generally) what Defendant seeks when he refers to “documents between  you and defendant.” Plaintiff in one iteration of responses attempted to identify communications, but “communications” between Plaintiff and Defendant are sought in Request No. 2, and these are evidently unsatisfactory to Defendant. Defendant in his separate statement does not clarify the request, which from his argument appears to seek both Plaintiff’s private journals and social media communications with third parties. (Separate Statement at pp. 7–8.) How these documents constitute “documents between Plaintiff and Defendant” is not clear, and good cause does not support the request and the motion is DENIED as to Request No. 1.

Because Defendant’s Requests No. 3 and 5 mimic the illegible structure of Request No. 1, the motion is also DENIED as to Requests No. 3 and 5.

Request No. 2 is clearer, but no further response is likewise warranted. It seeks all communications between the parties between from January to March of 2019. (Separate Statement at p. 8.)  The subject matter of this request has already been extensively discussed in two prior motions before the court, with the parties disputing responsibility for the disposition or indisposition of various phones or texts that were at one point saved onto them.  Plaintiff’s first three responses to the request stated that Defendant had possession of the phone, and later referred to 66 pages of documents, also identified as responsive to Request No. 1. The third supplemental response, however, included the facts that formed the basis for Plaintiff’s motion for protective order, namely that the phone she used from February 2019 to January 2022 was inadvertently wiped at the Apple Store, and Plaintiff has tried without success to access iCloud to recover them. (Separate Statement at pp. 10–11.) Plaintiff states that Defendant ought to have these communications in any event. (Separate Statement at p. 11.) Defendant’s arguments as to the sufficiency of the response mimic the arguments made against Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order, which targeted not the present requests, but Defendant’s efforts to secure inspection of the phones in Plaintiff’s possession. If Defendant wishes to rebut the account of facts put forward in response to Request No. 2, it may conduct the inspections under the conditions set by the court’s January 30, 2024 order. The motion is DENIED as to Request No.2.

Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s responses to Requests No. 4 and 6 mimic his arguments as to Request No. 2. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has other phones with responsive documents, and does not address the adequacy of Plaintiff’s responses indicating that the phones have either been inadvertently wiped or stolen. (Separate Statement at pp. 22, 29.) Defendant has already sought to obtain inspection of the phones at issue. The motion is DENIED as to Requests No. 4 and 6.

No further response is proper to the remaining requests. Requests No. 7–10 sought communications and documents related to Plaintiff’s attempts to regain possession of the subject property, to which Plaintiff responded with statements of inability to comply, either by reference to the loss of her cell phone data, or else stating that the relevant documents “never existed.” (Separate Statement at pp. 30–43.) It is unclear what further response Defendant hopes to obtain.

The motion is also properly denied as to Requests No. 11–13 and 17, which sought documents related to the alleged January 2019 break-in and communications with third parties related thereto or to the subject property, Plaintiff responded by identifying all responsive documents related to the break-in, qualified by the explanation related to her lost or stolen cell phones, and identified “all responsive documents in Respondent’s possession, custody, or control.” (Separate Statement at pp. 47–58.) Defendant does not explain why a further response is required.

The motion is therefore DENIED as to requests for production.

This leaves Special Interrogatories No. 1–8 and 10–14.

No further response to Interrogatory No. 1 is warranted. This interrogatory sought “each and every fact that supports each and every allegation you allege in your complaint.” (Separate Statement at p. 2.) Plaintiff served a response, which Defendant argues is inadequate because it contains insufficient detail, such as dates or the purported value of Plaintiff’s interest in the subject property. (Separate Statement at pp. 5–6.) Defendant also finds objectionable the inclusion of language stating that Defendant had deleted a text message about her ouster. (Separate Statement at p. 6.) However, the only correspondence that Defendant presents regarding this interrogatory highlights not the inadequacy of the details but contains only an objection to the text-message statements. (Motion Exh. 10.) Nor does Defendant explain how the inclusion of this fact renders the response incomplete, inadequate, or evasive. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300.)

Nor is there indication of an inadequate response to Interrogatory No. 2, which sought witnesses with knowledge of the facts stated in Interrogatory No. 1. In informal correspondence, Defendant objected that the response did not include two friends whom Plaintiff had identified in deposition. (Motion Exh. 10.) Plaintiff’s amended response included multiple additional witnesses, but Defendant now objects that the response does not include Plaintiff’s brother or certain realtors. (Separate Statement at p. 7.) Defendant does not explain why their omission renders the interrogatory non-responsive.

Defendant’s argument as to Interrogatory No. 3 is also unpersuasive.  While this interrogatory seeks the identification of all documents supporting each and every allegation in Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendant argues that the interrogatory does not include “other text messages” beyond those indicated in the response, but does not state what these are. (Separate Statement at p. 10.) Defendant demands that Plaintiff provide a privilege log for “privileged emails” referenced in the response, but the reference to emails was included at Defendant’s behest, per his prior meet-and-confer correspondence demanding that she identify emails supporting her allegations, to which she responded that “[t]here are no nonprivileged emails that I am aware of that support my claims.” (Motion Exh. 10; Separate Statement at p. 9.) Defendant now demands in a motion a privilege log for emails that he had not previously requested. The motion is DENIED as to this interrogatory.

There is no need for a further response to Interrogatories No. 4 and 5. Defendant in these interrogatories asked Plaintiff to state why she filed the lawsuit in April 2022, and she provided a reasonable response, stating that she held out hope after the initial ouster for an informal resolution but that Defendant’s hostile behavior in early 2022, described as stalking Plaintiff on social media and her place of business, caused Plaintiff to believe that they were no longer on track toward an amicable solution.. (Separate Statement at pp. 10–14.) Defendant’s requests for elaboration  are unsupported.

Nor is a further response required as to Interrogatories No. 13 or 14. First, neither of these interrogatories appear in Defendant’s meet-and-confer correspondence. (Motion Exhs. 9, 10; Opposition Exhs. 1–3.) But the responses are substantively compliant.  Interrogatory No. 13 asked Plaintiff to identify any individual who discouraged her from filing a lawsuit, and Plaintiff identified her mother, stating that she “cautioned me about bringing such a lawsuit, but I would not say she discouraged me.” (Separate Statement at pp. 27–28.) Defendant accuses Plaintiff of “splitting hairs,” but Plaintiff’s characterization of the facts is responsive, and Defendant provides no evidence suggesting other “discouraging” parties exist. (Separate Statement at p. 29.) Interrogatory No. 14 asked Plaintiff to state why any witnesses so identified encouraged her to file the lawsuit — evidently an error, where the previous interrogatory referred to discouragers — and Plaintiff responded that her mother “did not encourage me to file the lawsuit.” (Separate Statement at p. 30.) The motion is DENIED as to these interrogatories.

Additionally, further responses to Interrogatories No. 11 and 12 are not warranted, as once more these interrogatories were not the subject of Defendant’s meet-and-confer correspondence. (Motion Exhs. 9, 10; Opposition Exhs. 1–3.)

Further responses are proper, however, as to Interrogatories No. 6 and 7. These asked Plaintiff to identify each instance in which she (1) requested possession of the subject property and (2) when Defendant denied her possession. (Separate Statement at pp. 15–19.) Plaintiff in response identified one instance on January 27, 2019, in which she went to the house and the locks were changed, and referred to other instances without similar specificity, including “[w]henever I dropped off my girls or picked them up,” and listing the one instance as only one “[a]mong other instances.” (Separate Statement at pp. 15–16, 19.) These responses do state responsive information with sufficient specificity as to frequency or time.

Another further response is required as to Interrogatory No. 10. This interrogatory asked Plaintiff to state her contention regarding the reasonable monthly rental value of the subject property “for each and every month from January 2019 to today.” (Separate Statement at p. 21.) Plaintiff responded by stating the rental value “at the time of the filing of the first amended complaint was $3,600 per month.” (Separate Statement at p. 22.) This response did not provide the full information sought by the interrogatory, which sought the reasonable value for all months from January 2019 onward.

Thus the motions to compel further are DENIED as to Defendant’s motion regarding requests for production, GRANTED as to Special Interrogatories No. 6, 7, and 10, and DENIED as to other special interrogatories.

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).)

Plaintiff seeks $,3045.00 in sanctions in connection with the motion directed to requests for production, and $3,500.00 in connection with the interrogatories motion, representing respectively 5.8 and 6.36 hours of attorney work at $525 per hour. (Murphy Decl. ¶¶ 4–5.) Defendant seeks $16,791.00 in fees in connection with the documents motion and $8,029.50 in connection with the interrogatories motion, representing respectively 33.8 hours and 16.1 hours at $495 per hour. (Carlsen Decl. ¶ 18.)

Sanctions are awarded against Defendant and his counsel in the amount of $2,100 on the motion seeking production of documents, as Defendant’s motion was denied in its entirety. No sanctions are awarded on the interrogatories as each party was only partially successful.