Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 21STCV07594 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

This order concerns ten (10) motions generally related to the discovery in this action (collectively, the “Motions”).

Defendant Cloudbreak Inglewood, LLC (“Cloudbreak”) filed four motions to compel further (collectively, the “MTCFs”): (1) a motion to compel further responses to its Requests for Production, set one (the “RFP MTCF”); (2) a motion to compel further responses to its Form Interrogatories, set one (the “FROG MTCF”); (3) a motion to compel further responses to its Special Interrogatories, set one (the “SPROG MTCF”)^{^[1]}; and (4) a motion to compel further responses to its Requests for Admission, set one (the “RFA MTCF”).

Plaintiff filed: (1) three motions for a protective order (collectively, the “Protective Order Motions”); and (2) three motions for sanctions (the “Sanctions Motions”).

MOVING PARTIES: Cloudbreak (with respect to the MTCFs); and Plaintiff (with respect to the Motions for Protective Order and Motions for Sanctions)

RESPONDING PARTIES: Plaintiff (with respect to the MTCFs); and Cloudbreak (with respect to the Motions for Protective Order and Motions for Sanctions)

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. No reply papers were filed with respect to the Protective Order Motions or Sanctions Motions. Any reply papers were required to have been filed and served at least five court days before the hearing pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

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.

The Motions all concern discovery propounded on Plaintiff by Cloudbreak. Cloudbreak filed the MTCFs on July 7, 2022. Plaintiff filed the Protective Order Motions on August 25, 2022. Plaintiff filed the Sanctions Motions on September 19, 2022.

Under 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, 234-35.) 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.)

If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.020, subd. (a).) To support an objection to a request for production of documents, the objecting party must establish the validity of its objections with supporting facts in order to meet its burden. (Southern Pac. Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 3 Cal.App.3d 195, 198.)

The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following: (1) a statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities; (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item; or (3) an objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling. (CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production. (CCP § 2031.220.) A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. (CCP § 2031.230.) This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. (Id.) The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. (Id.)

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.)

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 indicates that since the filing of the MTCFs, he has served supplemental responses. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Motions are MOOT. Cloudbreak may file additional motions to compel further should they take the position that Plaintiff’s supplemental responses remain insufficiently responsive. In light of this ruling, the Court denies Cloudbreak’s request for monetary sanctions.

When an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents, tangible things, places, or electronically stored information has been demanded, the party to whom the demand has been directed, and any other party or affected person, may promptly move for a protective order. (CCP § 2031.060, subd. (a). This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (Id.) For good cause shown, the court may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. (CCP § 2031.060, subd. (b).)[2]

The Protective Order Motions appear to concern the same set of discovery requests that were addressed in the MTCFs. Plaintiff’s justifications for the respective Protective Order Motions appear to be that Cloudbreak’s requests are impermissibly excessive, although Plaintiff has neither raised any specific challenge to the numerosity of the requests nor specified the scope of any proposed protective order. Nor has Plaintiff included meet and confer declarations or set forth facts demonstrating good cause for the Protective Order Motions.[3] The Court therefore DENIES the Protective Order Motions.

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with CCP section 2023.010 against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (See CCP §§ 2031.060, subd. (h), 2030.090, subd. (d), 2033.080, subd. (d).)

Cloudbreak seeks monetary sanctions in the amount for the time its counsel spent on its oppositions to the Protective Order Motions (collectively, the “Protective Order Oppositions”) in the amount of $1,225 per Protective Order Opposition. This amount represents: (1) one hour reviewing each Protective Order Motion; (2) four hours drafting each Protective Order Opposition and accompanying papers; (3) an anticipated one hour reviewing any reply papers; and (4) an anticipated one hour attending and attending the hearing at an hourly rate of $175 per hour. (See Declarations of James W. Colfer (“Colfer Decls.”) Colfer Decls. ¶ 6.) The Court exercises its discretion and awards Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the reasonable amount of $350, which represents two hours of work on the Protective Order Oppositions. (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.) Plaintiff is ordered to pay Cloudbreak this amount within 20 days of this order.

A basic tenet of motion practice is that the notice of motion must state the grounds for the order being sought pursuant to CCP section 1010 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.110(a), and courts generally may consider only the grounds stated in the notice of motion. (Kinda v. Carpenter (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1277.) Notices must be in writing, and the notice of a motion, other than for a new trial, must state when, and the grounds upon which it will be made, and the papers, if any, upon which it is to be based. If any such paper has not previously been served upon the party to be notified and was not filed by him, a copy of such paper must accompany the notice. (CCP § 1010.)

The Sanctions Motions appear to have some connection to the Protective Order Motions. The Sanctions Motions do not, however, identify the statute or statutes which provide the legal grounds for Plaintiff to seek sanctions. As a result, it is unclear if the Sanctions Motions are brought pursuant to any of the statutes governing discovery procedures or any other statute providing for sanctions such as CCP section 128.5. In addition, the Sanctions Motions do not set forth facts to support the amount of monetary sanctions requested. Furthermore, to the extent that the Sanctions Motions are brought in conjunction with the Protective Order Motions, in light of the Court’s ruling on the Protective Order Motions, discussed supra, Plaintiff is not entitled to sanctions against Cloudbreak.

Cloudbreak seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,225 for the time its counsel spent on its oppositions to the Sanctions Motions (collectively, the “Sanctions Oppositions”) in the amount of $1,225 per Sanctions Opposition. The breakdown of the time spent on the Sanctions Oppositions mirrors the breakdown provided in the Protective Order Oppositions. (See Colfer Decls. ¶ 6.)

The Court exercises its discretion and awards Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the reasonable amount of $350, which represents two hours of work on the Sanctions Oppositions. (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.) Plaintiff is ordered to pay Cloudbreak 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 MTCF and SPROG MTCF collectively as the “Interrogatories MTCFs.”

[2] A party may move for a protective order regarding interrogatories and RFAs for identical reasons. (See CCP §§ 2030.090 (interrogatories), 2033.80 (RFAs).

[3] Furthermore, the Court notes that the SPROGs and RFAs propounded on Plaintiff include a declaration stating Cloudbreak’s justification for seeking greater amounts of SPROGs and RFAs than otherwise permitted by statute. (See CCP §§ 2030.40 (SPROGs), 2033.040 (RFAs).) The Protective Order Motions do not specify why the additional requests are improper.