Judge James L. Crandall, Case 21-1236602 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: James L. Crandall, Case: 21-1236602, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories

2. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

3. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

4. Motion to Compel Production

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to form interrogatories, set one, is DENIED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(a) states,

“(a) 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 Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

Plaintiffs served form interrogatories to Defendant on 6/8/22. (Brackmann Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendant served responses electronically on 7/11/22, the date agreed on by the parties. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter on 7/14/22. (Id. at ¶ 4.) On 7/15/22, the parties agreed to put discovery on hold for 60 days to facilitate settlement discussions. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs withdrew their agreement to the 60-day hold on 7/28/22, but Defendants insisted that 9/13/22 was their deadline to respond under the parties’ agreement. (Id. at ¶¶ 8-10.) Plaintiffs filed the present motions on 8/29/22. Defendant served further responses to the disputed interrogatories on 11/14/22. (Heck Decl., ¶¶ 7-8.)

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to form interrogatories nos. 15.1 and 17.1. In opposition, Defendant contends the motion is moot in light of its further responses to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories. In reply, Plaintiffs maintain the responses are deficient because they include boilerplate objections. Defendant is entitled to assert objections in its further responses because Defendant’s initial responses and objections were timely based on the parties’ agreement. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).) Plaintiff hasn’t shown Defendant’s further responses are deficient.

Therefore, the motion is denied as moot.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied. Defendant acted with substantial justification in opposing the motion in light of the parties’ dispute regarding the due date and Defendant’s eventual service of Code-compliant further responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.310(h).)

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Served by Jorge Daboub

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to special interrogatories, set one, served by Plaintiff Jorge Daboub, is DENIED.

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to Jorge Daboub’s special interrogatories nos. 1, 9, 12, 15, 29, and 33.

Defendant served verified further responses to the disputed interrogatories dated 11/10/22. (Heck Decl., Exhibit 2.) In reply, Plaintiffs don’t identify any deficiency in the further responses except for the inclusion of objections. However, Defendant served timely responses and Defendant is entitled to assert objections with its responses. Therefore, the motion is denied as moot.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Served by Plaintiff Laura Daboub.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to special interrogatories, set one, served by Plaintiff Laura Daboub, is DENIED.

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to Laura Deboub’s special interrogatory no. 1.

Defendant served verified further responses to the disputed interrogatory dated 11/10/22. (Heck Decl., Exhibit 3.) In reply, Plaintiffs don’t identify any deficiency in the further responses except for the inclusion of objections. However, Defendant served timely responses and Defendant is entitled to assert objections with its responses. Therefore, the motion is denied as moot.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to requests for production (set one) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The motion seeks to compel further responses to requests nos. 1-4, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35-39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 50-55, 61-65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 83, 85, 88-91, 93, 95, 99, 100, and 102-136.

In the reply, Plaintiffs withdraw the motion as to requests for production nos. 29, 52, 53, 56, 62-65, 80, 81, 83, 88, 89, 90, 91, and 103-112. Therefore, the remaining responses in dispute are nos. 1-4, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 31, 33, 35-39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 54, 55, 61, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 85, 93, 95, 99, 100, 102, and 113-136.

Defendant has produced documents and served verified supplemental responses dated 11/23/22. In reply, Plaintiffs maintain that Defendant’s responses remain deficient because (1) the written responses aren’t Code-compliant, (2) certain of the responses are limited to documents “responsive to this category for the time period relevant to the claims herein,” and (3) no further response to request no. 4 was served.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(a) provides,

“(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 states,

“A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 states,

“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. 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. 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.”

Many of Defendant’s statements of compliance are Code-compliant, for example Defendant’s supplemental responses to RFPs 1 and 10:

Response to no. 1: “The Association has produced all documents responsive to this category. (See HVCA288- 289; 299-300; 402-404; 445; 531-532; 913-919; 1011-1013; 1069-1070; 1230-1236; 1289-1291; 1350-1351; 1369-1383; 1515-1516; 1609-1615; 1669-1671; 1732-1733; 1750-1764; 1850-1852; 1869-1875; 1920-1922; 2087-2093; 2138-2140; 2170-2171; 2186-2200, previously produced).”

Response to no. 10: “Association will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request.”

These responses are unequivocal and Code-compliant. Defendant is not required to provide further responses as to the disputed responses which include the statements of compliance in the supplemental responses to nos. 1 and 10.

However, certain of Defendant’s statements of ability to comply are evasive and not Code-compliant, for example Defendant’s supplemental response to no. 12:

Response to no. 12: “The Association has produced all documents responsive to this category for the time period relevant to the claims herein. (See HVCA1-2293, previously produced).”

This statement of compliance is insufficient because it is unclear whether Defendant is complying in whole or in part, and it is unknown what Defendant means by “the time period relevant to the claims herein.” Therefore, Defendant is ordered to provide Code-compliant further responses to nos. 12, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 55, 59, 61, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 83, 85, 117, 118, 119, 120, and 121.

Defendant’s statements of inability to comply are Code-compliant, as Plaintiffs concede in their reply. Defendant is not required to provide further responses as to responses which include a statement of inability to comply.

As to RFP 4, no further response was provided. RFP 4 seeks, “Any and all COMMUNICATIONS or other DOCUMENTS that REFER or RELATE to the recent appointment of Bruce Clark as a Director on the Board.” Defendant objects that this request is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs contend that Mr. Clark is Plaintiffs’ next-door neighbor, who has opposed their building plans. Mr. Clark and Plaintiff Laura Daboub were both vying for a seat on the HOA Board, but Clark was appointed rather than Plaintiff. Plaintiff has shown that RFP 4 is reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence as to the basis for Defendant’s decision which gave rise to Plaintiffs’ claims. Therefore, Defendant is ordered to provide a further response to no. 4.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $685 as to this motion.