Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV17366, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV17366 Hearing Date: April 5, 2023 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
April 5, 2023
21STCV17366
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses by Defendant to Special Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses by Defendant to Requests for Production and Request for Sanctions
DECISION
Special Interrogatory Nos. 58, 80, 81 and 83
For the reasons stated by Defendant, the motion is denied with respect to these requests.
Special Interrogatory No. 57
Now that a protective order has been entered, the Court grants this motion subject to the application of the protective order to the extent Defendant is revealing the prior location of the cameras.
That said, the Court does not understand why Defendant did not substantively answer this question since Defendant, in its opposition, claims not to know the prior locations of the surveillance cameras. Defendant is ordered to serve a further verified response without objections which is code complaint within five days after the date of this order.
Requests for Production
Requests Nos. 71, 84, 85, 86
For the reasons stated by Defendant, the motion is denied.
Sanctions
Both sides seek sanctions.
With respect to the motion relating to requests for production, the Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney jointly and severally in the amount of $2,765 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.310(h) for unsuccessfully making a motion to compel further. The Court does not find that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification. The sanctions are due within five days after the date of this order.
With respect to the motion relating to requests for production, the motion was mostly denied, but granted in part. Under these circumstances, the Court declines to impose sanctions.
Moving party to provide notice.
