Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 22STCV01476, Date: 2023-12-20 Tentative Ruling

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

Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) breach of oral agreement; and (2) unjust enrichment.

On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to Requests for Admission (“RFAs”) and Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”) that were propounded on Defendant Galia Kassabian (“Defendant”) (the “Motion”). The Motion also requests monetary sanctions against Defendant for her misuse of the discovery process.

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).) Under CCP section 2033.220, subdivision (c), if a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP § 2033.220, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff provides evidence that the RFAs and FROGs were served on Defendant on August 30, 2023. (Declaration of Bernard R. Given, II (“Given Decl.”) ¶ 2.) Plaintiff received responses on October 2, 2023. (Given Decl. ¶ 3.) After Plaintiff’s counsel conferred with Defendant regarding the sufficiency of her responses, Defendant provided amended responses on October 16, 2023. (Given Decl. ¶ 6.)

Defendant’s RFA responses all state an inability to admit or deny the request and recite language that is consistent with CCP section 2033.220, subdivision (c). (See Given Decl., Exhibit E.) Plaintiff makes arguments regarding the sufficiency of Defendant’s investigation into the RFAs, but there is currently no information before the Court that enables a finding on this point.[1]

While Defendant’s RFA responses are sufficient, Defendant’s FROG responses are not fully responsive to the requests because they do not include contact information for the identified individuals. The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion in part and orders Defendant to provide further responses to the FROGs that respond to each portion of the inquiries within 20 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,850 to compensate for the attorney’s fees incurred in connection with the Motion. (See Given Decl. ¶ 7.) The Given Declaration does not include the amount of time spent working on the Motion or counsel’s hourly rate. In the absence of a basis for evaluating the reasonableness of the fees requested, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

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.

[1] There may be grounds for Plaintiff to move for sanctions if Plaintiff ultimately proves the genuineness of the documents referenced in the RFAs. (See CCP § 2033.429.)