Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV29514, Date: 2024-12-31 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.

This action arises from alleged habitability issues that occurred at a property located at 3714 Fletcher Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90065 (the “Property”). On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against Defendant and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence, (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (3) violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code § 151.10 et seq.; and (4) civil penalties for violation of Los Angeles Anti-Harassment Ordinance § 45.30 et seq.

On October 1, 2024, Defendant filed three motions: (1) motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories (FIs); (2) motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories (SIs); and (3) motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents (RFPs) (collectively, the “Motions”).

On December 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a consolidated opposition (the “Opposition”) to the Motions. On December 18, 2024, Defendant filed three replies (the “Replies”) to the Opposition.

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. (Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), § 2031.310, subd. (a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)

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)).

Defendant argues that further responses are needed because Plaintiff responded to the discovery requests with only minimally substantive responses and mostly objections and has not produced any documents in response to the RFPs. (All Mots., pp. 5-6.) In the Opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Motions should be denied because Defendants did not conduct an informal discovery conference (“IDC”) as required by the parties’ joint discovery resolution stipulation (see 9/12/24 Stipulation) and because Plaintiff did not file separate statements. (Opp. p. 1:3-11.) In the Replies, Defendant states that he submitted a stipulation regarding an IDC to the Court and did not receive a response within ten days, thus allowing him to proceed to file the instant Motions. (Replies, p. 3)

Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections to the discovery requests are without merit. The discovery resolution stipulation between the parties permits a party to file a motion to compel if the Court has not granted or denied a submitted request for IDC within ten days of filing the request. (9/12/24 Stipulation, ¶¶ 3(d), 4) Further, Plaintiff has not provided any substantive argument as to why the objections are meritorious, or why he has not produced any documents in response to the RFPs. Thus, the Motions are GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide further Code-compliant, verified responses to the subject discovery within 20 days of this order. With regard to the RFPs, Plaintiff is ordered to state which documents, by Bates number, are responsive to each individual RFP. Plaintiff is further ordered to produce all responsive documents, properly Bates-stamped, to the RFPs within 20 days of this order and to provide a Privilege Log as to any documents properly withheld based upon privilege only.

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