Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 20STCV07283, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV07283    Hearing Date: March 18, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Southern Motion’s omnibus motion to compel further responses to compel further responses to its Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories is DENIED.

Southern Motion is sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $5,600, payable within 20 days of entry of this order. 

The Court previously sanctioned Southern Motion, jointly and severally with counsel, $2,800. Now, the Court sanctions Southern Motion, jointly and severally with counsel, $5,600, payable within 20 days of entry of this order.

On 2/21/2020, Plaintiff Era Nouveau Holdings, LLC (ENH or Era Nouveau or Enouvation) filed a Complaint against Southern Motion, Inc. (SM or Southern Motion), setting forth a claim for declaratory relief and a claim for breach of contract. Southern Motion answered and cross-complained against Era Nouveau, adding Era Nouveau USA, LLC (EN USA LLC) and Era Nouveau, LLC (EN LLC) as Cross-Defendants and setting forth claims for 1) fraudulent misrepresentations; 2) fraudulent concealment; 3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; 4) breach of implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose; 5) breach of contract; and 6) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. 

On 5/15/2020, Southern Motion filed a Cross-Complaint against ERA Nouveau Holdings, LLC, ERA Nouveau USA, LLC, and ERA Nouveau, LLC. On June 5, 2020, Southern Motion added Samuel Contreras as Roe 1, Nathan Munton as Roe 2, and Thomas Peper as Roe 3. Munton specially appeared and moved to quash service of summons. On September 29, 2020, the Court granted the motion. 

On October 8, 2020, Southern Motion filed its First Amended Cross-Complaint (FAXC), adding David Witmer as a Cross-Defendant and setting forth the same six claims. As of today’s date, Witmer has not yet formally appeared in this action. On May 4, 2021, the Court overruled a demurrer to Southern Motion’s Second Amended Cross-Complaint (SAC).

           On 10/18/2023, Southern Motion moved for compel further responses from ENH to its Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One).

           On 12/28/2023, ENH opposed.

Discussion

           SM argues that ENH should be ordered to supplement its responses because its objections lack merit, and “every iteration was simply a copy-paste application of objections, and the objections were not tailored, and often, not related, to the Requests themselves, or to California law.” (Motion, 8: 21-22.)

           After review, the Court disagrees.

           As noted by ENH in opposition, while ENH’s responses did include objections, they also included substantive responses. As such, SM’s motion is misleading in that it suggests that ENH’s responses consistent solely of boiler-plate objections.

           Moreover, this motion strongly appears to be an act of gamesmanship, rather than a good faith effort to engage in discovery. Both parties have criticized the other for filing Separate Statements with copy-and-pasted justifications for why further discovery is warranted. Despite that, SM filed a nearly 600-page long Separate Statement, and uses identical language for every single request: “[b]ut, Cross-Complainant uses the same language verbatim for every single request. Cross-Complainant analyzes every single objection asserted to any request, while conceding that the objection may not have been raised to that particular request.” (Opp., 5: 9-12.)

           This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that SM was sanctioned for this very conduct in the Court’s 11/15/2023 ruling on another motion to compel further responses brought by SM. The Court wrote:

Second, each “Why Further Response is Warranted” section in Southern Motion’s Separate Statement is identical. As such, Southern Motion has not explained with any nuance why any given response is insufficient or why the objections are invalid as to any particular request. Rather, Southern Motion copy and pasted the same exact justification for each discovery response, despite the wide range of responses implicated by the motion. Given that a 589-page Separate Statement was filed, Southern Motion’s copy-and-paste motion has not met its burden to show that further responses are warranted as to each of the discovery requests, which includes 117 Special Interrogatories.

           (11/15/2023 Minute Order)

           The Court concludes that SM’s conduct amounts to an abuse of the discovery process. SM’s motion to compel further discovery is denied. The Court previously sanctioned SM, jointly and severally with counsel, $2,800. Now, the Court sanctioned SM, jointly and severally with counsel, $5,600, payable within 20 days of entry of this order.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  March    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.