Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00074, Date: 2022-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00074    Hearing Date: August 19, 2022    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiffs Dan Brown and Kathy Brown (“Plaintiffs”) filed the complaint for (1) breach of contract, (2) money had and received, and (3) unjust enrichment against Defendant Stephen F. Daniels (“Defendant”) on February 2, 2022.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant executed and delivered to Plaintiffs a promissory note on May 10, 2013.  On May 9, 2019, Defendant delivered to Plaintiffs a modified promissory note.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant defaulted in his performance on the 2019 note by failing to pay the outstanding balance when due.  Plaintiffs allege that the total amount now due and owing is $305,716.39. 

B.     Motions on Calendar

On June 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed 2 motions to compel initial responses from Defendant for: (1) Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), set one; and (2) Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”), set one.  Plaintiffs also filed a motion for order deeming Requests for Admissions (“RFA”), set one, admitted. 

On August 9, 2022, Defendant filed an untimely opposition brief to the 3 motions.

On August 12, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move to compel initial responses from Defendant’s initial responses to the FROG and RPD, as well as move for an order deeming RFAs admitted.  On March 15, 2022, Plaintiffs served on Defendant the discovery requests.  Plaintiffs granted extensions to Defendant to provide responses by May 27, 2022.  As of the filing of the motions, Plaintiffs state that they have not received responses from Defendant. 

In opposition, Defendant states that he provided responses to the discovery on July 13, 2022, the documents sought by Plaintiff are already in Plaintiff’s possession, and the documents were lost in a fire.  Defendant argues that he has not been uncooperative in providing responses, but instead has been trying to engage Plaintiffs to settle the case. 

In reply, Plaintiffs acknowledge that they received responses on July 13, 2022 to the RFA and FROG.  However, Plaintiffs argue that no responses to the RPDs were provided, except for Defendant’s declaration (dated June 23, 2022).  In this declaration, Defendant states that on December 6, 2017, the Creek Fire burned down several structures on the property located at 8803 Gold Creek Road, Lake View Terrace, CA 91342 and that any documents that he had which related to the promissory notes or payments to Plaintiffs were lost in the fire.  (Madnick Decl. re Reply, Ex. A [Def.’s Decl., ¶¶2-3].) 

However, as pointed out by Plaintiffs in reply, the fire occurred in 2017, but Plaintiffs seek document requests that are not limited to documents predating December 2017.  As alleged in the complaint, the parties entered into a 2019 note, which was 2 years after the fire.  As such, it appears that there are responsive documents to the RPD requests and initial responses to the RPDs should be provided. 

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to the FROG is moot in light of the responses provided by Defendant on July 13, 2022. 

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to the RPD is granted pursuant to CCP § 2031.300.

Plaintiffs’ motion for an order deeming the RFAs admitted is moot in light of the responses provided by Defendant on July 13, 2022. 

Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant and his attorney in the amount of $2,435 per motion.  The requests are granted in the reasonable sum of $1,000, plus $180 in filing fees for these relatively simple motions to compel initial responses.  While Defendant argues that he has been trying to resolve this case informally, this does not absolve Defendant from complying with his discovery obligations.  The Court will impose sanctions against Defendant only and not against defense counsel.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to the Form Interrogatories and the motion for an order deeming the Requests for Admissions are moot in light of Defendant’s responses. 

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to the Request for Production is granted.  Defendant is ordered to provide verified responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, without objections, within 20 days of notice of this order. 

Defendant is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,180 to Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiffs shall provide notice of this order.