Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV05623, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05623    Hearing Date: May 9, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of an alleged public nuisance caused by gang-related activity at an apartment complex located in the North Hollywood area of Los Angeles (the “Property”).  Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) public nuisance; and (2) unfair competition.

On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SPROGs”) that it propounded on Defendant Swaranjit S. Nijjar (“Nijjar”) (the “Motion”).

DISCUSSION

California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2017.010 provides that, generally, any party may obtain discovery regarding any relevant matter that is not privileged.  Discovery is relevant if it is itself admissible in evidence or if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (CCP § 2017.010.)  Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.  (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.)  The burden is on the party responding to discovery to justify his or her objections to such discovery.  (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21.) 

As a preliminary matter, it is undisputed that after Plaintiff filed the Motion, Nijjar provided supplemental responses, and Plaintiff only contends that Nijjar’s responses to SPROG Numbers 15, and 19-22 remain insufficient.  The Motion is thus MOOT except to the extent that it concerns these SPROGs.

SPROG Number 15

SPROG Number 15 seeks information concerning oral and/or written requests for security measures for the Property between 2001 to the present.  The Court agrees that Nijjar’s response is insufficient because it does not address the request for both oral and written communications and fails to set forth efforts made to obtain the information.  (See CCP § 2030.220, subd. (c); Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782.) 

SPROG Numbers 19-22

SPROG Numbers 19-22 request financial information.  Nijjar contends that this evidence is not relevant at this stage in the litigation because it is not needed to establish his liability under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and Plaintiff failed to obtain leave of court to seek evidence of his financial condition.  The Court is not convinced by this argument. 

Under the UCL, the court is required to impose a civil penalty for each violation and in assessing the amount of the civil penalty, the court shall consider any one or more of the relevant circumstances presented by any of the parties to the case, including, but not limited to, the following: the nature and seriousness of the misconduct, the number of violations, the persistence of the misconduct, the length of time over which the misconduct occurred, the willfulness of the defendant's misconduct, and the defendant's assets, liabilities, and net worth.
(People v. First Federal Credit Corp. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 721, 728.)  Thus, while the court is not required to consider evidence of a defendant’s financial condition when imposing statutory penalties, the UCL’s statutory scheme directly provides that the evidence is relevant.  (See id. at 730-31.)  In addition, Nijjar does not cite to any applicable authority for the proposition that Plaintiff was required to seek leave of court before seeking this evidence.  Civil Code section 3295, which Nijjar relies on, concerns punitive damages as defined under Civil Code section 3294, not statutory penalties under the UCL. 

The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion and orders Nijjar to provide further supplementary responses to SPROG Numbers 15, and 19-22 within 20 days of the date of this order.

Monetary Sanctions

            Plaintiff requests $3,750 in monetary sanctions, which represents: (1) six hours preparing the moving papers at a rate of $375 per hour; and (2) four hours preparing the reply papers at a rate of $375 per hour.  (See Declaration of Drew Robertson (“Robertson Decl.”) ¶ 26; Declaration of Nancy C. Hagan (“Hagan Decl.”) ¶ 4.)  The Court exercises its discretion and awards Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the reasonable amount of $3,750, which represents a total of 10 hours working on the moving and reply papers at a rate of $375 per hour, which is to be paid by Defendants and their counsel within 20 days of the date of this order.  (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.) 

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 9th day of May 2023