Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV03554, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03554    Hearing Date: April 24, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ motions to compel further are GRANTED. Responses are due within 45 days of entry of this order. Defendants are each sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $1,050.00.

            On 1/28/2022, Plaintiff Fifth Street Funding, Inc. and Mideb Nominees, Inc. (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Clayton’s Public House, LP, EPG Development, Inc. dba Clayton’s Construction, Elizabeth Peterson Group, Inc., Tony Gower Pubs, LLC, Elizabeth Peterson, Tony Gower, and Annette Zilinskas, alleging: (1) breach of written lease; (2) breach of written lease; (3) fraud; (4) quantum meruit; (5) open book account; (6) declaratory relief; (7) declaratory relief; and (8) breach of written guaranty.

            Now, Plaintiffs move to compel further responses from Defendants to discovery. For ease, the Court has consolidated its analysis into a single ruling.

Discussion

            Plaintiffs seeks to compel further responses from Defendants to its Requests for Production of Documents (RFPs), Requests for Admission (RFAs), Special Interrogatories, and Form Interrogatory-General.

            In opposition, Defendants all advance substantially similar arguments, i.e., that Plaintiffs failed to adequately meet and confer on these motions, and that Defendants’ failure to provide full and complete timely responses was due to the sudden departure of a former associate attorney handling this matter, and the absence of the directing partner of the firm and lead counsel over the case due to an unexpected family death.

            The Court is unpersuaded by Defendants’ contentions for several reasons.

First and foremost, Defendants’ motions are not accompanied by responses to Plaintiffs’ separate statements (as required by the California Rules of Court), and make no substantive effort to argue that their responses are substantially code-compliant.

Second, while Defendants contend that they are committed to thoroughly responding to discovery moving forward, they offer no timeline as to when they could be expected to adequately respond to outstanding discovery: “Although a new associate attorney is taking over the case and can sufficiently respond to all propounded requests, additional time is needed for sufficient responses to be produced that comply with statutory requirements. Currently, it is impossible to respond to over (160) one-hundred and sixty of questions for the series of propounded discovery requests.” (Gower Opp., 7: 20-25.)

While the Court understands the administrative burdens and unexpected loss which contributed to this delay, this discovery was served in June 2022. If Defendants had set forth a defense of their discovery responses, or provided a clear timeline as to when they could provide supplemental responses, the Court may have been amenable to at least a continuance of this motion. However, Defendants filed oppositions which were not code-compliant, which did not substantively address any of the underlying discovery, offered no estimate as to when they would provide code-compliant responses, and accused Plaintiffs of gamesmanship for filing motions which were served close to a year ago and which they repeatedly communicated about their intention to file. Such a response is inadequate and suggests that this matter will be indefinitely delayed if these motions are not granted.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further are granted. Responses are due within 45 days of entry of this order. Defendants are each sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $1,050.00.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  April    , 2023

   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. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.