Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 24STCV08837, Date: 2025-05-22 Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFF OSCAR DE LEON’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MILWAUEE APARTMENT, LLC TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

PLAINTIFF OSCAR DE LEON’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MILWAUEE APARTMENT, LLC TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

PLAINTIFF OSCAR DE LEON’S MOTION TO COMPEL MILWAUEE APARTMENT, LLC TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

This is a landlord-tenant dispute. On February 3, 2025, plaintiff Oscar De Leon (“Plaintiff”) filed these motions to compel defendant Milwaukee Apartment, LLC (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents. Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant.

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300 and 2031.310, parties may move for a further response to interrogatories and requests for production of documents where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general.¿

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c); 2031.310, subd. (c).)¿ Motions to compel further must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)¿¿

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses.¿ (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1345(a)(3).)¿

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 is a general statute authorizing the court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes (without limitation) a variety of conduct such as: making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)¿¿

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction.¿¿¿¿

Sanctions shall be awarded against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Plaintiff seeks Defendant’s further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 15.1, 50.1-50.6, Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 17, 25-27, and Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 3, 7-13, 16-20, 22-24, 29-30, 32, 34, 36-40. The court addresses each discovery set in turn.

FROG Nos. 50.1-50.6: GRANTED. The objections lack merit. Plaintiff alleges Breach of the Warranty of Habitability and Breach of Quiet Enjoyment which are contract-based claims.

SROG Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 17, 25-27: GRANTED. Defendant’s objections lack merit. The substantive answers are not straightforward. Plaintiff may discover whether repairs were made to units other than Unit 5.

RPD Nos. 3,10-13, 17, 18, 30, 36, 39, 40: GRANTED. The substantive answers are incomplete and not straightforward as they do not indicate whether Defendant will comply with the demand in whole or in part.

RPD Nos. 7-9, 16, 19-20, 22-24, 29, 32, 34, 37-38: DENIED. The supplemental answers are code compliant.

Given the court has granted Plaintiff’s motions as to the form and special interrogatories, the court finds sanctions against Defendant is warranted. Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Defendant in the amount of $1,200, consisting of two hours at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate.

Plaintiff Oscar De Leon’s motions to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories are GRANTED. Defendant Milwaukee Apartments, LLC is ordered to provide verified, further responses to the discovery requests as indicated in this order within 30 days.

Plaintiff Oscar De Leon’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED in part. Defendant Milwaukee Apartments, LLC is ordered to provide verified, further responses to the discovery requests as indicated in this order within 30 days.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,200 to Plaintiff, by and through his counsel, within 30 days of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court