Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV35619, Date: 2025-01-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35619    Hearing Date: January 15, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff and Defendant E.H. Butland Corp. (“Butland”) moves to compel Plaintiff and Defendant Hamilton Brothers Construction, Inc. (“Hamilton”) to provide further responses to Butland’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 26, 38, 43, 48, 53, 58, and 63.

The Court GRANTS Butland’s motion.  Hamilton shall provide full and complete responses to these Special Interrogatories within 10 days.

The parties have waived sanctions. The Court does not grant sanctions.

Background

This is a construction dispute where Butland, a general contractor, contends that Hamilton, a subcontractor, overbilled it for work performed on a construction project.

Butland is the general contractor for the Cheder Girls School construction project, located at 100 South La Brea Avenue, Los Angeles (the “Project”). Hamilton entered into a contract with Butland to drill and construct 93 concrete foundation piles as well as the structural concrete, slab-on-grade, and light concrete work for the Project.

Hamilton initially contracted to complete 93 piles for $295,000.00. Butland contends that Hamilton completed only seven of the piles – less than 8 percent of the work – before being terminated. Butland contends that Hamilton was terminated for cause; Hamilton contends that it was terminated for Butland’s convenience.

Before it was terminated, Hamilton submitted two invoices to Butland; the first indicated that Hamilton had completed 53.07 percent of its work on the foundation piles and its second indicated that it had completed various percentages of various change orders.

This case was filed on November 9, 2022 by Plaintiff Paco Ventures, LLC (“Paco Ventures”) against Hamilton and Butland. Paco Ventures has since settled its claims.

On December 1, 2022, Hamilton filed a complaint in this action against Butland and 100 S. La Brea, LLC for (1) breach of contract; (2) quantum meruit; and (3) foreclosure of mechanic’s lien.

On December 12, 2022, Butland filed a complaint in this action against Hamilton for (1) breach of contract; (2) negligence; (3) common count; and (4) unjust enrichment.

On November 5, 2024, Butland served the discovery at issue. Hamilton responded on December 9, 2024. Counsels for the parties met and conferred from December 16, 2024 to December 23, 2024.

On December 31, 2024, Butland filed this motion.

On January 10, 2025, the Court granted Butland’s ex parte application to advance the hearing date on this motion to January 15, 2025 so that it could be heard before the approaching trial date of February 3, 2025. The parties agreed that the motion would be heard notwithstanding that it was past the discovery cutoff date. The parties also agreed to waive sanctions. The Court ordered that Hamilton’s opposition would be due by January 13, 2024.

On January 13, 2024, Hamilton filed an opposition.

Discussion

            Each of the interrogatories at issue asks Hamilton to support state all facts in support of its             contentions that it had completed certain percentages of the original project and change orders by May 20, 2022 and June 15, 2022, if Hamilton so contends. (See generally, Butland Separate Statement.) Hamilton provided short, conclusory responses to each, stating essentially that it had expended those percentages of the time, labor, and costs that it expected to expend. (See generally, Butland Separate Statement.)

            Butland argues that these responses do not adequately state facts supporting the contentions. Hamilton contends that it has already disclosed all of the underlying facts regarding the work to Butland in previous discovery in this case, and that these interrogatories only serve to seek Butland’s legal theories for trial.

            The responses do not adequately state responsive facts. The parties agree that there is a wealth of underlying facts missing from the responses, and only dispute whether they need to be stated. The Court agrees with Butland’s position. While the underlying facts may have been previously disclosed, Butland is within its rights to ask Hamilton which facts support its positions that it had completed the percentages of work that it claimed on its invoices. If these facts have already been exchanged in discovery, then the burden of aggregating them into one set of responses should be less than it otherwise would be.  Accordingly, the Court grants the motion.