Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV26205, Date: 2025-02-04 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.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Jose Santos, Maria Martinez, Alvin Agustin Santos Martinez and Clarissa Santos Martinez (collectively “Plaintiffs”)

This is a habitability action. On October 26, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative complaint against defendant E. Rojas Properties, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of warranty of habitability; (2) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) negligence; and (4) breach of contract.

On October 15, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories (“FIs”) and special interrogatories (“SIs”). On October 17, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel further responses to requests for production (“RFPs”) and a motion to compel further responses to requests for admission (“RFAs”) (collectively, the “Motions”). All three Motions request sanctions.

The Court notes that the single motion to compel further responses to interrogatories should have been submitted as two separate motions, one to compel further responses to FIs and one to compel further responses to SIs. The Court will consider the motion on the merits, but Plaintiffs counsel is directed to pay the $60.00 filing fee to the Court within five Court days of this order that would have applied if the motions had been properly filed separately.

A motion to compel a further response is used when a party gives unsatisfactory answers or makes untenable objections to interrogatories, demands to produce, or requests for admission. (See Code Civil Procedure (“CCP”), §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a), 2033.290, subd. (a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403 (Sinaiko) [interrogatories and demands to produce].)

To compel a further response to interrogatories, the movant can show that: (1) the responding party’s answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete (CCP, § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1)); (2) the responding party’s exercise of the option to produce documents in response to an interrogatory was unwarranted or the required specification of those documents was inadequate (CCP, § 2030.300, subd. (a)(2)); and (3) the responding party’s objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general (CCP, § 2030.300, subd. (a)(3); see, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550 [defendant’s argument that plaintiff was required to establish good cause or prove merits of underlying claim before propounding interrogatories without merit]).

To request further production, a movant must establish: (1) good cause for the production (CCP, § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); Sinaiko, supra, at p. 403); and (2) that a further response is needed because (a) the responding party’s statement of compliance with the demand to produce is incomplete CCP, § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1)), (b) the responding party’s representation that it is unable to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive (CCP, § 2031.310, subd. (a)(2)), (c) the responding party’s objection in the response is without merit or is too general (CCP, § 2031.310, subd. (a)(3); Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1127), or (d) if the responding party objected to the production of ESI on the ground that it is not reasonably accessible the movant can show that the (i) ESI is reasonably accessible or (ii) there is good cause for production of the ESI regardless of its accessibility (CCP, § 2031.310, subd. (e)).

To obtain further responses to requests for admission, the movant must establish that (1) the response to an RFA is evasive or incomplete (CCP, § 2033.290, subd. (a)(1)) or (2) the objection to an RFA is without merit or too general (CCP, § 2033.290, subd. (a)(2)).

FI No. 12.1 requests contact information for the individuals who witnessed the incident. FI Nos. 15.1 and 17.1 requests facts supporting Defendant’s affirmative defenses and denials. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s responses do not state supporting facts and are incomplete.

SI Nos. 2, 36 and 59 request Defendant to identify witnesses. SI Nos. 1 and 28-29 request Defendant to identify certain documents. SI Nos. 6-9 and 15 request information on repairs, complaints and fumigation at the subject property. SI Nos. 30 and 39-41 request information about Plaintiffs’ rent. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s responses are incomplete and the objections are without merit.

Upon review, the Court agrees that Defendant’s responses to FIs and SIs are incomplete and that the interrogatories are not vague, ambiguous or overly broad. Further, the interrogatories do not appear to request documents or seek information that violates attorney-client privilege. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel further responses to interrogatories.

RFAs Nos. 1-2 and 33 ask Defendant to admit that there were bedbugs and cockroaches at the subject property. RFA No. 3 asks Defendant to admit that Plaintiffs did not contribute to the bedbug infestations. RFA No. 12 asks Defendant to admit that Plaintiffs were not reimbursed for damages caused by bedbugs. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant does not state that a reasonable inquiry was made or explain how they lack sufficient information.

Upon review, the Court agrees that the responses do not comply with the requirements of CCP § 2033.220. The only proper response to a request for admission is to (1) admit, (2) deny, or (3) state 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.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel further responses to RFAs.

RFP Nos. 1 and 14 request documents related to Plaintiffs’ injuries. RFP Nos. 15-16, 23 and 29 requests documents relating to Plaintiffs tenancy at the property including any complaints from Plaintiffs. Defendant objects to the RFPs on the following grounds: attorney client and/or attorney work product privilege, vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, oppressive and burdensome, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s objections to the requests are without merit.

Upon review, the Court agrees that the objections are without merit. The requests are not vague, ambiguous, overly broad, oppressive or burdensome because they are narrowly tailored to the Plaintiffs in this action for the specific period of their tenancy at the subject property. The privilege objections are insufficiently supported because Defendant has failed to provide a privilege log. Further, Defendant’s failure to oppose this motion also undermines the objections for lack of a separate statement supporting those objections. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel further responses to RFPs.

Except in certain circumstances involving electronic stored information, the court must impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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. (CCP, § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

Even after a party provides discovery responses, a party can keep its motion on calendar and the court has authority to grant sanctions, even if it denies the motion to compel responses “as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part.” (Sinaiko, supra, at p. 409.)

Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant and counsel for the motion to compel further responses to interrogatories in the total amount of $1,760.00 based upon counsel’s rate of $200/hour for: (1) 4.5 hours preparing the motion and accompanying documents; (2) 2.5 hours to prepare a reply; (3) 1.5 hours to prepare for and attend the hearing on this motion; and (4) $60 in filing fees. (Malco Decl. ¶¶ 17-20.) The Court finds that 2.5 hours is a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees for time spent preparing the motion. Further, no reply was filed and the Court anticipates that the hearing on this matter will take no longer than 0.5 hours. Thus, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $660.00.

Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant and counsel for the motion to compel further responses to RFAs in the total amount of $1,760.00 based upon counsel’s rate of $200/hour for: (1) 4.5 hours preparing the motion and accompanying documents; (2) 2.5 hours to prepare a reply; (3) 1.5 hours to prepare for and attend the hearing on this motion; and (4) $60 in filing fees. (Malco Decl. ¶¶ 17-20.) The Court finds that 2.5 hours is a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees for time spent preparing the motion. Further, no reply was filed and the hearing on this motion is scheduled for the same day and time as the motion to compel further responses to interrogatories. Thus, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $560.00.

Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant and counsel for the motion to compel further responses to RFPs in the total amount of $1,760.00 based upon counsel’s rate of $200/hour for: (1) 4.5 hours preparing the motion and accompanying documents; (2) 2.5 hours to prepare a reply; (3) 1.5 hours to prepare for and attend the hearing on this motion; and (4) $60 in filing fees. (Malco Decl. ¶¶ 17-20.) The Court finds that 2.5 hours is a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees for time spent preparing the motion. Further, no reply was filed and the Court anticipates that the hearing on this matter will take no longer than 0.5 hours. Thus, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $660.00.

Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant is order to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 12.1, 15.1 and 17.1 and Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1-2, 6-9, 13-15, 27-30, 36, 39-41, 45 and 59 within 30 days of this order.

Defendant, and counsel, are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiffs in the amount of $660.00 within 30 days of this order.

Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One, Nos. 1-3, 12 and 33 within 30 days of this order.

Defendant, and counsel, are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiffs in the amount of $560.00 within 30 days of this order.

Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests for Production, Set One, Nos. 1, 14-16, 23 and 29 within 30 days of this order.

Defendant, and counsel, are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiffs in the amount of $660.00 within 30 days of this order.

Plaintiffs counsel is ordered to remit the $60 filing fee to the Court for the improperly combined motions.

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