Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV35638, Date: 2024-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35638    Hearing Date: April 3, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s motions are MOOT. Sanctions in the amount of $3,400.00 are imposed on Kenneth Childs and counsel for failing to sufficiently meet and confer and for causing unnecessary delay in the discovery process.

On November 9, 2022, Plaintiff Iris Au (Plaintiff) filed suit against Enzo Zelocchi (Zelocchi), Kenneth Childs (Childs), and David Do (Do) (collectively “Defendants”) alleging: (1) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED); (2) Attempted Extortion; (3) Aiding and Abetting Attempted Extortion; (4) False Light; and (5) Defamation Per Se.

            On November 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed motions to compel further discovery responses from Childs (hereinafter “Defendant”).  Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide additional responses to Requests for Admissions (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Special Interrogatories (Set One).  Plaintiff requests $3,615.00 in sanctions for each motion.

Legal Standard

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)  For discovery purposes, information is regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.”  (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court¿(2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)¿¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿¿ 

A propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to a request for admission if the propounding party deems that an answer is evasive or incomplete, or that an objection is “without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a).)  

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents (“RFP”) may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §¿2031.310(a).)¿

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that . . .”[a]n answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)  

¿¿¿

A motion to compel further response lies where the party to whom the interrogatories were directed gave responses deemed improper by the propounding party; e.g., objections, or evasive or incomplete answers.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.) “The ruling usually is based on consideration of the following factors:  the relationship of the information sought to the issues framed in the pleadings; the likelihood that disclosure will be of practical benefit to the party seeking discovery; the burden or expense likely to be encountered by the responding party in furnishing the information sought.” (Rylaarsdam, et al., Civ. Pro. Before Trial. (The Rutter Group 2015) § 8:1181.)

Discussion

            On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff propounded Requests for Admissions, Set One; Requests for Production, Set One; Form Interrogatories, Set One; and Special Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant.  (Babcock ¶ 4.)  On September 11, 2023, Defendant served responses.  (Id. ¶ 5.)  On September 22, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer correspondence regarding the deficiencies in Defendant’s responses.  (Id. ¶ 6.) 

            On January 11, 2024, the Court held an Informal Discovery Conference regarding Plaintiff’s motions to compel.  (1/11/24 Notice of Ruling.)  In Defendant’s notice, Defendant states that on March 19, 2024, it provided verified supplemental responses subject to the Court’s direction at the IDC.  (3/19/24 Childs’ Notice.) 

On March 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply brief to all the discovery motions, requesting that sanctions still be awarded despite Defendant filing supplemental responses.  Plaintiff states that Defendant waited until the day before their Opposition was due to provide supplemental responses and misrepresented the parties’ meet and confer efforts. 

The parties do not dispute that supplemental responses were provided.  Thus, the Court finds that the motions are denied as MOOT.  

However, the Court agrees that Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer correspondence and make reasonable attempts to resolve the discovery disputes informally.  Plaintiff’s counsel claims an hourly rate $395 and 4.5 hours preparing the motion and separate statement, 2.5 hours reviewing the opposition and preparing a reply, and 2 hours to appear in court in addition to the $60 filing fee.  (Babock. ¶¶ 14-15.)  The Court finds that sanctions should be imposed in the reduced amount of $850 per motion, for a total of $3,400.00 for failing to sufficiently meet and confer and for causing unnecessary delay in the discovery process.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  April 3, 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.