Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 21STCV35635, Date: 2024-02-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV35635 Hearing Date: February 27, 2024 Dept: 72
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 72
TENTATIVE
RULING
|
CHRIS NELSON, Plaintiff, v. PHOEBE BRIDGERS, Defendant. |
Case No:
21STCV35635 Hearing Date: February 27, 2024 Calendar Number: 1 |
Defendant Phoebe Bridgers (“Defendant”) moves to compel
further responses to discovery requests propounded on Plaintiff Chris Nelson
(“Plaintiff”) in order to enforce a money judgment previously entered in her
favor.
The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion with respect to Special
Interrogatories Nos. 8 and 9 and Requests for Production Nos. 8 and 9. Absent a specific showing of need, the Court
views demands for social security number and driver license number as too
invasive. Moreover, in the documents
produced pursuant to this order, Plaintiff may redact his social security
number and driver license number.
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion with respect to Special
Interrogatories 17, 18, 19, 28, and 29 and Requests for Production 16, 17, 26,
and 27. For each of these requests, Plaintiff shall not be required to provide
information or documents with respect to responsive property with a fair market
value of less than $500.00.
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Request for Inspection No. 5,
but Plaintiff shall not be required to permit inspection of musical equipment
with a fair market value of less than $500 unless that equipment is at the same
location as musical equipment with a fair market value of $500 or greater.
GRANTS Defendant’s motion with respect to the remaining
items at issue.
Plaintiff shall provide the interrogatory answers and
documents subject to production within 30 days of this order.
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees and
costs in the amount of $5,000. Plaintiff shall pay this amount Defendant’s
counsel within 30 days of the issuance of this order.
On November 9, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s
anti-SLAPP motion as to all of Plaintiff’s causes of action against Defendant.
Defendant
subsequently moved for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the anti-SLAPP
statute. On April 18, 2023, the Court entered a judgment in Defendant’s favor
in the amount of $490,608.32 in attorney’s fees.
Plaintiff
has since refused to pay the judgment. (Strub Decl. ¶ 8.)
On
October 31, 2023, Defendant served her First Set of Special Interrogatories and
First Set of Requests for Production and Demand for Inspection on Plaintiff.
The discovery requests seek information to ascertain whether there is any
property of Plaintiff that should be applied to the payment of the judgment.
Plaintiff
served his responses on January 9, 2024.
From
January 10, 2024 to January 22, 2024, counsels for Plaintiff and Defendant met
and conferred regarding the adequacy of the responses.
Defendant
filed this motion on January 30, 2024. Plaintiff filed an opposition and
Defendant filed a reply.
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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) Discovery
may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any
other party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)
“Relevant evidence is defined in Evidence Code section 210
as evidence ‘having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed
fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.’ The test of
relevance is whether the evidence tends logically, naturally, and by reasonable
inference to establish material facts. The trial court has broad discretion in
determining the relevance of evidence, but lacks discretion to admit irrelevant
evidence.” (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013)
217 Cal.App.4th 138, 148 [internal quotations and citations omitted].)
“A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection,
copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular
demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or
sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in
part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the
possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is
being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)
“A representation of inability to comply with the particular
demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a
diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply
with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to
comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been
destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no
longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The
statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or
organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or
control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)
“(a)
On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or
sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response
to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:
(1) A statement of compliance with the
demand is incomplete.
(2)
A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
(3) An objection in the response is
without merit or too general.
(b) A motion
under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following:
(1)
The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the
discovery sought by the demand.
(2)
The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section
2016.040.
(3)
In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court,
the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the
discovery request and each response in dispute.
(c)
Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the
verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any
specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have
agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further
response to the demand.
…
(h) Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary
sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party,
person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel
further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the
sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make
the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.)
The
burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and
specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior
Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)
Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then
shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document
disclosure. (Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)
Code
of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, subdivision (a) requires that “[e]ach
answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and
straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party
permits.” Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, a party may
move to compel further responses to a form interrogatory if the other party’s
answer is “evasive or incomplete.” The responding party has the burden of
justifying the objections to the form and special interrogatories. (Coy v.
Super. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7
(commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who
unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to
interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted
with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition
of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling
answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition
of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under
Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that
sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing
with Section 2023.010).” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290.
The
parties’ respective positions can be found in their filings, including the
separate statements. The Court’s rulings on each request are set forth below.
Special Interrogatory Nos. 1-7: Plaintiff shall provide
code-compliant responses to these interrogatories.
Special Interrogatory No. 8: Plaintiff shall not be required
to disclose his social security number.
Special Interrogatory No. 9: Plaintiff shall not be required
to disclose his driver’s license information.
Special Interrogatory Nos. 10-15: Plaintiff shall provide
code-compliant responses to these interrogatories.
Special Interrogatory No. 16: Plaintiff shall provide
code-compliant responses to this interrogatory, but shall not be required to
disclose information regarding musical equipment with a fair market value of
less than $500.
Special Interrogatory No. 17: Plaintiff shall provide
code-compliant responses to this interrogatory, but shall not be required to
disclose information regarding musical equipment with a fair market value of
less than $500.
Special Interrogatory No. 18: Plaintiff shall provide
code-compliant responses to this interrogatory, but shall not be required to
disclose information regarding musical equipment with a fair market value of
less than $500.
Special Interrogatory Nos. 19-27: Plaintiff shall provide
code-compliant responses to these interrogatories.
Special Interrogatory No. 28: Plaintiff shall provide
code-compliant responses to this interrogatory, but shall not be required to
identify personal assets with a fair market value of less than $500.
Special Interrogatory No. 29: Plaintiff shall provide
code-compliant responses to this interrogatory, but shall not be required to
identify personal assets with a fair market value of less than $500.
Special Interrogatory Nos. 30-33: Plaintiff shall provide
code-compliant responses to these interrogatories.
RFP Nos. 1-7: Plaintiff shall produce all responsive
documents.
RFP No. 8: Plaintiff shall not be required to produce a copy
of his driver’s license.
RFP No. 9: Plaintiff shall not be required to produce a copy
of his social security card.
RFP Nos. 10-15: Plaintiff shall produce all responsive
documents.
RFP No. 16: Plaintiff shall produce all responsive documents,
but shall not be required to produce documents that only relate to musical
equipment with a fair market value of less than $500.
RFP No. 17: Plaintiff shall produce all responsive
documents, but shall not be required to produce documents that only relate to
musical equipment with a fair market value of less than $500.
RFP Nos. 18-25: Plaintiff shall produce all responsive
documents.
RFP No. 26: Plaintiff shall produce all responsive documents,
but shall not be required to produce documents that relate only to personal
property with a fair market value of less than $500.
RFP No. 27: Plaintiff shall produce all responsive
documents, but shall not be required to produce documents that relate only to
personal property with a fair market value of less than $500.
RFP Nos. 28-43: Plaintiff shall produce all responsive
documents.
Request for Inspection Nos. 1-3: Plaintiff shall permit the
requested inspections.
Request for Inspection No. 4: Plaintiff shall permit the
requested inspections.
Request for Inspection No. 5: Plaintiff shall permit the
requested inspections, but shall not be required to permit inspection of
musical equipment with a fair market value of less than $500 unless that
equipment is at the same location as musical equipment with a fair market value
of $500 or greater.
Request for Inspection No. 6: Plaintiff shall permit the
requested inspections.
The
Court awards attorney’s fees in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. The
Court does not find that any of the statutory exceptions to an award of
attorney’s fees are present here.
Defendant requests an hourly rate of $1,195.00 for attorney Michael
H. Strub. The Court finds this rate to be reasonable in light of the fact that
Defendant has voluntarily capped her claim for sanctions at $5,000, which is
less than the fees she is actually incurring.
The
court therefore awards a total of $5,000 in sanctions.