Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 19SMCV00273, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV00273    Hearing Date: March 9, 2023    Dept: O

Case No. 19SMCV00273 MITESH PATEL, et al. vs RAMO, LLC, et al.

Hearing date March 9,2023

               TENTATIVE RUILING

1.            Defendant/Cross-Complainant Ramo, LLC's Motion to Compel Further Responses from Cross-Defendants/Cross-Complainants No. 1 Buccaneer Condominium Association, Todd Kohn and Frank Maddocks ("Responding Cross-Defendants") to Form Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 4.1, 7.1, 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.4, 12.5, 12.7, 14.1, 16.1, 50.1, 50.2 is GRANTED. Responding Cross-Defendants are ordered to serve further responses within 20 days.  Ramo's request for $1,905 in sanctions against Responding Cross-Defendants and their counsel is GRANTED.  Sanctions to be paid within 20 days. Ramo is to submit the proposed order.

2.            Defendant/Cross-Complainant Ramo, LLC's Motion to Compel Further Responses from Cross-Defendants/Cross-Complainants No. 1 Buccaneer Condominium Association, Todd Kohn and Frank Maddocks ("Responding Cross-Defendants") to Requests for Production of Documents (RFPs) (Set One) Nos.1-10, 18-25, 30, 31, 33-41, 45-63, 65, 67-71 is GRANTED.  Responding Cross-Defendants are ordered to serve further responses within 20 days.  Ramo's request for $2,315 in  sanctions against Responding Cross-Defendants and their counsel is GRANTED. Sanctions to be paid within 20 days.

               REASONING

               Ramo’s motions are timely.  Ramo has met its burden to demonstrate good cause for the RFPs, i.e. relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. See CCP §2031.310(b)(1); see also Kirkland v. Sup.Ct. (Guess?, Inc.) (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.

               The burden is on the responding Cross-Defendants to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories and RFAs.  See Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.  Where a party moves to compel further responses to requests for production, the moving party must demonstrate good cause, i.e. relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. See CCP §2031.310(b)(1); see also Kirkland v. Sup.Ct. (Guess?, Inc.) (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.

               Responding Cross-Defendants filed a late opposition agreeing to serve further responses. Responding Cross-Defendants maintain they have always been willing to serve further responses.  Responding Cross-Defendants argue the motions are therefore moot and sanctions unwarranted.  Inexplicably, Responding Cross-Defendants have still not served full further responses.  Given Responding Cross-Defendants continued delay in serving the long promised further responses and documents, the  the motions are not moot, and there is no substantial justification for Responding Cross-Defendant’s opposition to the motions.

               In connection with the motion to compel further responses to the form interrogatories, Ramo requests sanctions in the amount of $1,905 based on 6 hours of attorney time @ $205/hr and a $60 filing fee.  Ramo's request for $1905 in sanctions against Responding Cross-Defendants and their counsel is GRANTED.  Sanctions to be paid within 20 days. 

               In connection with the motion to compel further responses to the RFPs, Ramo requests sanctions in the amount of $2,315 based on 15 hours of attorney time @ $205/hr and a $60 filing fee.  Ramo's request for $2,315 ins anctions against Responding Cross-Defendants and their counsel is GRANTED. Sanctions to be paid within 20 days.

               Ramo's request for an additional $615 in sanctions based on time spent to review the opposition and prepare the reply is denied. The initial sanctions request included the time estimated for opposition review, reply prep and hearing attendance.