Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21STCV24488, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 21STCV24488    Hearing Date: February 8, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Michael Theodore (“Moving Defendant”)

            RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff

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

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a dispute over the enforcement of a money judgment. The currently operative fourth amended complaint (the “4AC”) alleges: (1) statutory voidable transfers; and (2) common law voidable transfers. 

            On September 28, 2023, Moving Defendant filed a motion to compel further responses to the Requests for Admission (“RFAs”), Requests for Production (“RFPs”), Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”), and Special Interrogatories (“SPROGs”) that were propounded on Plaintiff (the “Motion”). 

DISCUSSION

Under CCP section 2031.310, 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.) 

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).)   

Moving Defendant served the discovery requests at issue in the Motion on July 13, 2023.  (Declaration of Joshua P. Friedman (“Friedman Decl.”) ¶ 3, Exhibits A-D.)  Plaintiff provided responses on August 14, 2023.  (Friedman Decl. ¶ 4, Exhibits E-H.)  Despite meet and confer efforts, Moving Defendant and Plaintiff have been unable to resolve the dispute over the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s responses. 

 Plaintiff argues that the Motion’s arguments are meritless because the discovery requests (and the resulting responses) directly request information that is within Defendant’s control which Moving Defendant has repeatedly failed to provide Plaintiff in response to discovery Plaintiff has propounded.

Upon review of Plaintiff’s responses, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s responses to the RFAs, FROGs, and SPROGs are sufficient, and Plaintiff’s objections are well-taken in the context of the ill-defined terms in the discovery that Moving Defendant propounded.  With respect to the RFPs, the Court finds that further responses are warranted to identify documents (to the extent that Plaintiff possesses any) that form the basis for Plaintiff’s claims.  The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion in part and orders Plaintiff to provide further RFP responses within 20 days of the date of this order.  The Court declines to impose monetary sanctions on either Plaintiff or Moving Defendant at this time.

             Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

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.

        Dated this 8th day of February 2024