Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22GDCV00252, Date: 2024-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22GDCV00252    Hearing Date: March 14, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      March 14, 2024                                               TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         GC-8, LLC, a California limited liability company; SAN CLEMENTE BEACH COUNTRY CLUB, a California corporation; SHORECLIFFS GOLF MANAGEMENT, INC, a California corporation; SEAN LEONG, an individual; and ALLSION LEE, an individual; v, ROBERT D. HEINRICH, CPA, an individual; ROBERT D. HEINRICH, C.P.A., INC., a California corporation, MMAP SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-30, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 22GDCV00252

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Robert Heinrich

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Shorecliffs Gold Management Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to his discovery requests.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiffs claim that Defendant Robert Heinrich engaged in professional negligence related to accounting and bookkeeping services. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on September 29, 2023, alleging four causes of action for (1) professional negligence, (2) negligent supervision, (3) common counts, and (4) violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s motions to compel further responses are DENIED as moot.

            Defendant’s requests for sanctions are denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

On receipt of a response to discovery requests, the party requesting may move for an order compelling further responses for interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.300), requests for admission (Cod. Civ. Proc. section 2033.290), and request for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310). “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.290, subd. (c).

DISCUSSION

            Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Shorecliffs Gold Management Inc. (“Shorecliffs”) to provide further responses to his discovery requests. Defendant provides that on July 27, 2023, he served requests for the production of documents, form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for admissions. (Wu Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant provides that on August 28, 2023, Plaintiff served deficient responses containing objection-only responses. (Id. ¶ 6.) The parties engaged in various meet and confer efforts, which ultimately resulted in an agreement to extend the deadline to bring the motions to compel to February 20, 2024. (Id. ¶ 17.)

            In opposition, Shorecliffs provides that it served supplemental responses on or around February 19 and 20, 2024. (Butler Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) In reply, Defendants that Shorecliffs supplemental responses are deficient because they are unverified. However, each of Shorecliffs’ supplemental responses are followed by a verification statement. Thus, because Shorecliffs eventually filed supplemental responses, the present motions are denied as moot.

The court recognizes that Defendant filed amended separate statements as to his motions to compel further responses to his special interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for the production of documents. However, the amended statements were filed on March 5, 2024. Thus, the amended separate statements are untimely for the purposes of this hearing. Further, Defendant’s amended separate statements are deficient.

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires a separate statement to include “[a] statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute”. While Defendant facially complies with this requirement by including a “reason further response to [discovery request] is warranted” next to the discovery requests, Defendant merely includes stock language claiming that Shorecliffs' objections are meritless and boilerplate. Much like Shorecliffs’ boilerplate objections are unhelpful to Defendant, Defendant’s boilerplate statements of insufficiency are not helpful to this court to determine whether further responses should be ordered as to the specific discovery requests. The court also notes that the “reason further responses is warranted” section is missing from some of the discovery requests at issue.

Defendant’s separate statements fail to adequately establish a proper reason for this court to compel further responses as to the specific discovery request. Defendant merely repeats language for the type of discovery request at issue but fails to demonstrate why further responses should be ordered as to each matter. Thus, because Defendant’s amended separate statements are untimely and deficient, the present motions are still denied as moot.

            The only issue remaining is the issue of sanctions. Shorecliffs provides that Defendant has engaged in bad faith delay to avoid producing discovery. Both parties provide that Shorecliffs required various extension, including one case where Shorecliffs’s counsel provided he had computer issues, to produce its responses. Based on the circumstances surrounding this motion, the court finds it would be prudent to avoid sanctions at this time to promote and encourage the parties to meet and confer in good faith.

However, the court notes that “[c]ivil discovery is intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention. ‘[I]t is a “central precept” of the Civil Discovery Act ... that discovery ‘be essentially self-executing[.]’ ” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402.) The court warns the parties that any future failures to cooperate in the discovery process will result in sanctions in favor of the prevailing party.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motions to compel further responses are DENIED as moot.

            Defendant’s requests for sanctions are denied.

Dated:   March 14, 2024                                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court