Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 21STCV07594 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling

This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship. The currently operative fourth amended complaint (the “4AC”) alleges: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability; and (3) negligence.

Moving Defendant filed four motions: (1) a motion to compel further responses to its Requests for Production, set one (the “RFP Motion”); (2) a second motion to compel further responses to its Form Interrogatories, set one (the “FROG Motion”); (3) a motion to compel further responses to its Special Interrogatories, set one (the “SPROG Motion”); and (4) a motion to compel further responses to its Requests for Admission, set one (the “RFA Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”).[1]

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2017.010, unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.010.) For discovery purposes, information is regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.” (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (CCP § 2031.310, subd. (c).) A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See CCP § 2031.310 subd. (b)(1); Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 234-24 (“Calcor”).) To establish good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact. (Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.) Factual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations. (Calcor, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at 224.)

The Court finds that Moving Defendant has not satisfied the good cause requirement. The declaration submitted with the Motion fails to set forth specific facts as to why good cause exists to justify the discovery demands. (See RFP Declaration of James W. Colfer (“RFP Colfer Decl.”).) The Court therefore DENIES the RFP Motion.

Under CCP section 2030.300, on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under CCP section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

Responses to interrogatories must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (CCP § 2030.220, subd. (a).) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, then it must be answered to the extent possible. (CCP § 2030.220, subd. (b).) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party. (CCP § 2030.220, subd. (c).) If the responding party cannot furnish details, they should set forth the efforts made to secure the information. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782.) The responding party cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under their control. (Id.)

The FROG Opposition and SROG Opposition assert that Plaintiff has served supplemental responses since the filing of the Motions. Plaintiff has provided no evidence of the content of his further responses and the Court is therefore unable to evaluate their sufficiency. (See Calcor, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at 224.) Nor has Plaintiff filed Separate Statements or otherwise provided legal arguments to respond to Moving Defendant’s arguments and demonstrate the sufficiency of his responses.[2] The Court therefore GRANTS the Interrogatories Motions. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to the requests identified in the FROG and SROG Motions within 20 days.

Under CCP section 2033.290, subdivision (a), on receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that either of the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete; or (2) an objection to a particular request is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2033.230, subd. (a).) As to requests for admission: (1) if only a part of a request for admission is objectionable, the remainder of the request shall be answered; and (2) if an objection is made to request or to a part of a request, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response, and if an objection is based on a claim of privilege then the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated. (CCP § 2033.230, subds. (a)-(b).)

Plaintiff’s RFA Opposition asserts that Plaintiff has served supplemental responses since the filing of the Motions. As with the other Oppositions to the Motions, Plaintiff has neither provided evidence of the content of his further responses nor arguments that respond to the arguments raised by Moving Defendant. The Court therefore GRANTS the RFA Motion. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to the requests identified in the RFA Motion within 20 days.

Moving Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,460 in connection to each Motion. (See Colfer Decls. ¶ 11.) These amounts represent: (1) five hours preparing each Motion and accompanying papers; (2) an anticipated three hours reviewing each Opposition, preparing each Reply, and attending the hearing at an hourly rate of $175 per hour; and (3) a $60 filing fee for each Motion. (Colfer Decls. ¶¶ 10-11.)

In light of this ruling, the Court DENIES the request for monetary sanctions in connection to the RFP Motion. The Court exercises its discretion and awards Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the reasonable amount of $355, which represents one hour of work on the Motions at an hourly rate of $175 per hour and $180 in filing fees. (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.) Plaintiff is ordered to pay Moving Defendant this amount within 20 days of this order.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative. If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in person. The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The Court refers to the FROG and SPROG Motions collectively as the “Interrogatories Motions.”

[2] Moving Defendant’s reply papers suggest that Plaintiff filed lengthy Oppositions to the Motions. No such documents were filed with the Court. The Court’s docket reflects the filing of two-page affidavits as Oppositions to the Motions.