Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV06312, Date: 2023-10-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06312    Hearing Date: October 16, 2023    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

Hearing Date:                         Monday, October 16, 2023

Case Name:                            Jason Konopisos, et al. v. Ark Wong, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive

Case No.:                                22STCV06312                       

Motion:                                  (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One); Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $4,122.50

                                                (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One); Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $3,960.00

                                                (3) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production (Set One); Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $3,650.00

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Tara Norris (“Plaintiff”)

Responding Party:                  Defendant Ark Wong (“Defendant”)

Notice:                                    OK

Ruling:                                    The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

                                                The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

                                                The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Defendant shall provide verified responses without objection to the above discovery within 30 days.

Plaintiff to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND

            This is a habitability action brought by plaintiffs Jason Konopisos and Tara Norris (“Plaintiff”), both tenants, against Ark Wong (“Defendant”), the alleged owner, operator, agent, and/or property manager of the premises where they reside. The complaint asserts causes of action for (1) private nuisance; (2) negligence; (3) breach of warranty of habitability; (4) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment; (6) violation of Civil Code § 1942.4; and (7) violation of Civil Code § 1942.5; and (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

            On January 4, 2023, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One on Defendant. (Tapanian Declaration Re: Form Rogs, Special Rogs, and RPDs ¶ 3 and Exhibit A.)

            On June 21, 2023, Plaintiff moved to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One. On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff moved to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

            On October 2, 2023, Defendant filed oppositions to the three motions.

            On October 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed replies.

DISCUSSION

Applicable Law

CCP §2030.300(a) authorizes a party propounding interrogatories to move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that “[a]n answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete,” “[a]n exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate,” or “[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

CCP §2031.310(a) authorizes the demanding party to move for an order compelling a further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that: “[a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete;” “[a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive;” or “[a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

 “Although the scope of civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless.  [M]atters are subject to discovery if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  The burden rests upon the party seeking the discovery to provide evidence from which the court may determine these conditions are met.”  (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223.)  A party seeking to compel production of documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought.”  (Id., emphasis added.)  “[F]actual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations.” (Id. (motion to compel properly denied where justifications for the motion were based on mere generalities presented in arguments.) As to interrogatories, the responding party has the burden of justifying the objections. (Coy v. Super. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Application to Facts

(1)           Form Interrogatories (Set One)

At issue are Nos. 2.2 – 2.7, 2.12 –2.13, 12.1 – 12.7, 13.1, 16.1—16.3, and 16-7 – 16.8.

Nos. 2.3-2.4, 2.6, 2.12-2.13, 12.1-12.7, 13.1, 16.1-16.3, 16.7

These interrogatories refer to “incident.”  Defendant objects that they are vague and ambiguous regarding the term “incident.” Plaintiff asserts that “incident” refers to the facts and circumstances that gave rise to all eight of Plaintiff’s habitability causes of action, and the relevant statutory period is four years prior to Plaintiff filing her complaint. In opposition, Defendant argues that given the scope of Plaintiff’s allegations, absent a clear definition, Defendant must speculate as to the information sought, particularly considering that there are eight causes of action asserted based on alleged events that span approximately a ten-year period.

Defendant further objects to interrogatories 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, and 2.12-2.13 on the grounds of privacy and privilege. Defendant has not justified these objections.

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff has sufficiently clarified “incident.”

Nos. 2.2, 2.5. and 2.7

These interrogatories ask, in the following order, (1) the date and place of Defendant’s birth; (2) the place of Defendant’s residence; and (3) Defendant’s educational background.

Defendant objects that the interrogatories seek irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects that the interrogatories violate Plaintiff’s privacy and that they seek privileged information.  Plaintiff moves to compel further on the ground that Defendant did not provide a full and complete response to Plaintiff’s request, and Plaintiff is unable to obtain the requested information from another source. Plaintiff argues that relevance is presumed because these interrogatories are based on judicial council forms. Plaintiff further argues that the disclosure of the names and addresses of potential witnesses is a routine and essential part of pretrial discovery, citing People v. Dixon (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 414, 443. Contrary to what Plaintiff argues, relevance is not presumed from the use of judicial council forms; Plaintiff cites to no authority in support and none exists. The information is not relevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence given the claims alleged in the Complaint.

The motion is DENIED for 2.2, 2.5, and 2.7.

(2)           Special Interrogatories (Set One)

At issue here are Special Interrogatories Nos. 2 – 4, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 – 32, and 42-43.

            Nos. 2 – 4, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 28–32, 42 – 43

Plaintiff moves to compel further on the ground that Defendant’s responses do not identify which documents or categories of documents are responsive, but rather produced documents labeled 000001-000246. For example, special interrogatory number 28 is about asbestos at the subject property, and Defendant contends that all documents are responsive, but 000030 to 000032 is an email chain about plumbing issues. (Separate Statement, pg. 60.)  Defendant disagrees that he has not sufficiently identified the documents.

The motion is GRANTED.

            No. 26

            This interrogatory asks when the subject property was originally constructed.

            Defendant states that the information sought is irrelevant, the interrogatory constitutes a misuse of the discovery process, and the information is equally available to Plaintiff by reviewing public records on file with the City of Los Angeles. Plaintiff moves to compel further on the ground that Defendant did not provide a full and complete response, and Plaintiff is unable to obtain the requested information from another source. In opposition , Defendant argues that he has directed Plaintiff to where the information can be obtained and that it is not his obligation to conduct his own independent search of the City of Los Angeles records. Defendant does not justify his other objections. However, abuse of the discovery process is not a valid objection. Defendant cites to no authority, and none exists for the notion that abuse of the discovery process is a valid objection.

            The motion is DENIED. Information in recorded public documents is readily available to both sides; a party cannot be required to search public records, compile search results, and furnish them to an opposing party. (Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Super. Ct. (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45, 54.)

            No. 27

This interrogatory asks to describe any instances the subject property was renovated.

Defendant states that the interrogatory seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, constitutes a misuse of the discovery process, and the information is equally available to Plaintiff by reviewing public records on file with the City of Los Angeles. Plaintiff moves to compel further on the ground that Defendant did not provide a full and complete response, and Plaintiff is unable to obtain the requested information from another source. In opposition , Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not define “renovation” as requested and described how past work on the apartment building unrelated to the conditions alleged in their complaint could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the interrogatory does not provide a time period. Defendant refers Plaintiff to records on file with the City of Los Angeles to obtain any permits and plans concerning the apartment building.

The motion is DENIED. Information in recorded public documents is readily available to both sides; a party cannot be required to search public records, compile search results, and furnish them to an opposing party. (Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Super. Ct. (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45, 54.) If Plaintiff needs further information after searching public records, Plaintiff is to clarify “renovation” and explain why past work on the apartment building unrelated to the alleged conditions leads to the discovery of admissible evidence.  

(3)           Request for Production of Documents (Set One)

At issue here are RFP Nos. 1-5, 9-10, and 15-20.

            Nos. 1-5, 9-10, 15, 17

Plaintiff moves to compel further on the ground that Defendant’s responses do not identify which documents or categories of documents are responsive, but rather produced documents labeled 000001-000246. Defendant disagrees that he has not sufficiently identified the documents.

The motion is GRANTED.

            No. 16

This request asks for documents evidencing any fictitious business name statements filed by Defendant in the last 10 years.

In response to RFP No. 16, Defendant states that he produced document no. 179.

This motion is DENIED.

            No. 18

This request asks for documents filed with any government entity or agency evidencing any corporation in which Defendant is any officer, director, and/or shareholder.

Defendant objects that the request is overly broad and seeks irrelevant information, infringes on Defendant’s privacy, and constitutes an abuse of the discovery process. Plaintiff argues that the information will help her evaluate Defendant’s financial condition, which is at issue because of Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim. Plaintiff also argues that it will help Plaintiff evaluate Defendant’s education and skill set, which is relevant to determine Defendant’s knowledge as a landlord. Defendant argues that Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (c) requires Plaintiff to obtain a court order to permit pretrial discovery of Defendant’s financial condition. Defendant does not justify his other objections.

The motion is DENIED because the request is overbroad as to time, scope and subject matter.

            No. 19

This request asks for documents filed with any government entity or agency evidencing any limited liability company in which Defendant is a member, officer, and/or manager.

Defendant objects that the request is overly broad and seeks irrelevant information, infringes on Defendant’s privacy, and constitutes an abuse of the discovery process. Plaintiff argues that the information will help her evaluate whether another entity may be needed to amend into the case as a defendant and will help Plaintiff evaluate Defendant’s education and skill set, which is relevant to determine Defendant’s knowledge as a landlord. Defendant argues that Plaintiff is really asking about Defendant’s financial condition, and Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (c) requires Plaintiff to obtain a court order to permit pretrial discovery of Defendant’s financial condition. Defendant does not justify his other objections.

The motion is DENIED because the request is overbroad and not reasonably limited as to time, scope and subject matter given the allegations raised in the complaint.   

            No. 20

This request asks for all documents filed with any government entity or agency evidencing any partnership in which Defendant is a partner.

Defendant objects that the request is overly broad and seeks irrelevant information, infringes on Defendant’s privacy, and constitutes an abuse of the discovery process. Plaintiff argues that the information will help her evaluate whether another entity may be needed to amend into the case as a defendant and will help Plaintiff evaluate Defendant’s education and skill set, which is relevant to determine Defendant’s knowledge as a landlord. Defendant argues that Plaintiff is really asking about Defendant’s financial condition, and Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (c) requires Plaintiff to obtain a court order to permit pretrial discovery of Defendant’s financial condition. Defendant does not justify his other objections.

The motion is DENIED because the request is overbroad and not reasonably limited as to time, scope and subject matter given the allegations raised in the complaint.   

(4)           Monetary Sanctions

The applicable statutes (CCP §§2030.300(d) and 2031.310(h)) contain similar language mandating the imposition of sanctions “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response . . . 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.”

            “[T]he burden is on the moving party to show (by declarations) the facts essential to an award of sanctions: e.g., the opposing party's failure to make discovery, reasonable efforts to resolve the matter informally, etc. The burden then shifts to the party against whom sanctions are being sought to establish some excuse or justification for the conduct in question.”  (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide:  Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group June 2021 Update) ¶ 8:2015.)

            Here, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions of $4,122.50 in connection with Form Interrogatories, Set One; $3,960 in connection with the motion re: Special Interrogatories, Set One; and $3,635.00 in connection with the motion re: Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Defendant requests monetary sanctions of $2,520 in connection with Form Interrogatories, Set One; $2,160 in connection with the motion re: Special Interrogatories, Set One; and $2,160 in connection with the motion re: Request for Production of Documents, Set One.  

            Sanctions are not warranted because each motion has been granted in part and denied in part.

CONCLUSION

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Defendant shall provide verified responses without objection to the above discovery within 30 days.

Sanctions are not warranted because each motion has been granted in part and denied in part.

            If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

Hearing Date:                         Monday, October 16, 2023

Case Name:                            Jason Konopisos, et al. v. Ark Wong, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive

Case No.:                                22STCV06312                       

Motion:                                  (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One); Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $4,122.50

                                                (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One); Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $3,960.00

                                                (3) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production (Set One); Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $3,635.00

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Jason Konopisos (“Plaintiff”)

Responding Party:                  Defendant Ark Wong (“Defendant”)

Notice:                                    OK

Ruling:                                    The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

                                                The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

                                                The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Defendant shall provide verified responses without objection to the above discovery within 30 days.

Plaintiff to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND

            This is a habitability action brought by plaintiffs Jason Konopisos (“Plaintiff”) and Tara Norris, both tenants, against Ark Wong (“Defendant”), the alleged owner, operator, agent, and/or property manager of the premises where they reside. The complaint asserts causes of action for (1) private nuisance; (2) negligence; (3) breach of warranty of habitability; (4) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment; (6) violation of Civil Code § 1942.4; and (7) violation of Civil Code § 1942.5; and (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

            On January 4, 2023, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One on Defendant. (Tapanian Declaration Re: Form Rogs, Special Rogs, and RPDs ¶ 3 and Exhibit A.)

            On June 21, 2023, Plaintiff moved to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One. On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff moved to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

            On October 2, 2023, Defendant filed oppositions to the three motions.

            On October 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed replies.

DISCUSSION

Applicable Law

CCP §2030.300(a) authorizes a party propounding interrogatories to move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that “[a]n answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete,” “[a]n exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate,” or “[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

CCP §2031.310(a) authorizes the demanding party to move for an order compelling a further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that: “[a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete;” “[a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive;” or “[a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

 “Although the scope of civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless.  [M]atters are subject to discovery if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  The burden rests upon the party seeking the discovery to provide evidence from which the court may determine these conditions are met.”  (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223.)  A party seeking to compel production of documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought.”  (Id., emphasis added.)  “[F]actual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations.” (Id. (motion to compel properly denied where justifications for the motion were based on mere generalities presented in arguments.) As to interrogatories, the responding party has the burden of justifying the objections. (Coy v. Super. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Application to Facts

(5)           Form Interrogatories (Set One)

At issue are Nos. 2.2 – 2.7, 2.12 –2.13, 12.1 – 12.7, 13.1, 16.1—16.3, and 16-7 – 16.8.

Nos. 2.3-2.4, 2.6, 2.12-2.13, 12.1-12.7, 13.1, 16.1-16.3, 16.7

These interrogatories refer to “incident.”  Defendant objects that they are vague and ambiguous regarding the term “incident.” Plaintiff asserts that “incident” refers to the facts and circumstances that gave rise to all eight of Plaintiff’s habitability causes of action, and the relevant statutory period is four years prior to Plaintiff filing his complaint. In opposition, Defendant argues that given the scope of Plaintiff’s allegations, absent a clear definition, Defendant must speculate as to the information sought, particularly considering that there are eight causes of action asserted based on alleged events that span approximately a ten-year period.

Defendant further objects to interrogatories 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, and 2.12-2.13 on the grounds of privacy and privilege. Defendant has not justified these objections.

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff has sufficiently clarified “incident.”

Nos. 2.2, 2.5. and 2.7

These interrogatories ask, in the following order, (1) the date and place of Defendant’s birth; (2) the place of Defendant’s residence; and (3) Defendant’s educational background.

Defendant objects that the interrogatories seek irrelevant information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant also objects that the interrogatories violate Plaintiff’s privacy and that they seek privileged information.  Plaintiff moves to compel further on the ground that Defendant did not provide a full and complete response to Plaintiff’s request, and Plaintiff is unable to obtain the requested information from another source. Plaintiff argues that relevance is presumed because these interrogatories are based on judicial council forms. Plaintiff further argues that the disclosure of the names and addresses of potential witnesses is a routine and essential part of pretrial discovery, citing People v. Dixon (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 414, 443. Contrary to what Plaintiff argues, relevance is not presumed from the use of judicial council forms; Plaintiff cites to no authority in support and none exists. The information is not relevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence given the claims alleged in the Complaint.

The motion is DENIED for 2.2, 2.5, and 2.7.

(6)           Special Interrogatories (Set One)

At issue here are Special Interrogatories Nos. 2 – 4, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 – 32, and 42-43.

            Nos. 2 – 4, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 28–32, 42 – 43

Plaintiff moves to compel further on the ground that Defendant’s responses do not identify which documents or categories of documents are responsive, but rather produced documents labeled 000001-000246. For example, special interrogatory number 28 is about asbestos at the subject property, and Defendant contends that all documents are responsive, but 000030 to 000032 is an email chain about plumbing issues. (Separate Statement, pg. 60.)  Defendant disagrees that he has not sufficiently identified the documents.

The motion is GRANTED.

            No. 26

            This interrogatory asks when the subject property was originally constructed.

            Defendant states that the information sought is irrelevant, the interrogatory constitutes a misuse of the discovery process, and the information is equally available to Plaintiff by reviewing public records on file with the City of Los Angeles. Plaintiff moves to compel further on the ground that Defendant did not provide a full and complete response, and Plaintiff is unable to obtain the requested information from another source. In opposition , Defendant argues that he has directed Plaintiff to where the information can be obtained and that it is not his obligation to conduct his own independent search of the City of Los Angeles records. Defendant does not justify his other objections. However, abuse of the discovery process is not a valid objection. Defendant cites to no authority, and none exists for the notion that abuse of the discovery process is a valid objection.

            The motion is DENIED. Information in recorded public documents is readily available to both sides; a party cannot be required to search public records, compile search results, and furnish them to an opposing party. (Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Super. Ct. (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45, 54.)

            No. 27

This interrogatory asks to describe any instances the subject property was renovated.

Defendant states that the interrogatory seeks irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, constitutes a misuse of the discovery process, and the information is equally available to Plaintiff by reviewing public records on file with the City of Los Angeles. Plaintiff moves to compel further on the ground that Defendant did not provide a full and complete response, and Plaintiff is unable to obtain the requested information from another source. In opposition , Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not define “renovation” as requested and described how past work on the apartment building unrelated to the conditions alleged in their complaint could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the interrogatory does not provide a time period. Defendant refers Plaintiff to records on file with the City of Los Angeles to obtain any permits and plans concerning the apartment building.

The motion is DENIED. Information in recorded public documents is readily available to both sides; a party cannot be required to search public records, compile search results, and furnish them to an opposing party. (Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Super. Ct. (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45, 54.) If Plaintiff needs further information after searching public records, Plaintiff is to clarify “renovation” and explain why past work on the apartment building unrelated to the alleged conditions leads to the discovery of admissible evidence.  

(7)           Request for Production of Documents (Set One)

At issue here are RFP Nos. 1-5, 9-10, and 15-20.

            Nos. 1-5, 9-10, 15, 17

Plaintiff moves to compel further on the ground that Defendant’s responses do not identify which documents or categories of documents are responsive, but rather produced documents labeled 000001-000246. Defendant disagrees that he has not sufficiently identified the documents.

The motion is GRANTED.

            No. 16

This request asks for documents evidencing any fictitious business name statements filed by Defendant in the last 10 years.

In response to RFP No. 16, Defendant states that he produced document no. 179.

This motion is DENIED.

            No. 18

This request asks for documents filed with any government entity or agency evidencing any corporation in which Defendant is any officer, director, and/or shareholder.

Defendant objects that the request is overly broad and seeks irrelevant information, infringes on Defendant’s privacy, and constitutes an abuse of the discovery process. Plaintiff argues that the information will help him evaluate Defendant’s financial condition, which is at issue because of Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim. Plaintiff also argues that it will help Plaintiff evaluate Defendant’s education and skill set, which is relevant to determine Defendant’s knowledge as a landlord. Defendant argues that Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (c) requires Plaintiff to obtain a court order to permit pretrial discovery of Defendant’s financial condition. Defendant does not justify his other objections.

The motion is DENIED because the request is overbroad as to time, scope, and subject matter.

            No. 19

This request asks for documents filed with any government entity or agency evidencing any limited liability company in which Defendant is a member, officer, and/or manager.

Defendant objects that the request is overly broad and seeks irrelevant information, infringes on Defendant’s privacy, and constitutes an abuse of the discovery process. Plaintiff argues that the information will help her evaluate whether another entity may be needed to amend into the case as a defendant and will help Plaintiff evaluate Defendant’s education and skill set, which is relevant to determine Defendant’s knowledge as a landlord. Defendant argues that Plaintiff is really asking about Defendant’s financial condition, and Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (c) requires Plaintiff to obtain a court order to permit pretrial discovery of Defendant’s financial condition. Defendant does not justify his other objections.

The motion is DENIED because the request is overbroad and not reasonably limited as to time, scope, and subject matter given the allegations raised in the complaint.   

            No. 20

This request asks for all documents filed with any government entity or agency evidencing any partnership in which Defendant is a partner.

Defendant objects that the request is overly broad and seeks irrelevant information, infringes on Defendant’s privacy, and constitutes an abuse of the discovery process. Plaintiff argues that the information will help her evaluate whether another entity may be needed to amend into the case as a defendant and will help Plaintiff evaluate Defendant’s education and skill set, which is relevant to determine Defendant’s knowledge as a landlord. Defendant argues that Plaintiff is really asking about Defendant’s financial condition, and Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (c) requires Plaintiff to obtain a court order to permit pretrial discovery of Defendant’s financial condition. Defendant does not justify his other objections.

The motion is DENIED because the request is overbroad and not reasonably limited as to time, scope, and subject matter given the allegations raised in the complaint.   

(8)           Monetary Sanctions

The applicable statutes (CCP §§2030.300(d) and 2031.310(h)) contain similar language mandating the imposition of sanctions “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response . . . 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.”

            “[T]he burden is on the moving party to show (by declarations) the facts essential to an award of sanctions: e.g., the opposing party's failure to make discovery, reasonable efforts to resolve the matter informally, etc. The burden then shifts to the party against whom sanctions are being sought to establish some excuse or justification for the conduct in question.”  (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide:  Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group June 2021 Update) ¶ 8:2015.)

            Here, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions of $4,122.50 in connection with Form Interrogatories, Set One; $3,960 in connection with the motion re: Special Interrogatories, Set One; and $3,635.00 in connection with the motion re: Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Defendant requests monetary sanctions of $2,520 in connection with Form Interrogatories, Set One; $2,160 in connection with the motion re: Special Interrogatories, Set One; and $2,160 in connection with the motion re: Request for Production of Documents, Set One.  

            Sanctions are not warranted because each motion has been granted in part and denied in part.

CONCLUSION

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Defendant shall provide verified responses without objection to the above discovery within 30 days.

Sanctions are not warranted because each motion has been granted in part and denied in part.

            If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.