Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV30963, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: July 31, 2024

Case Name: Young, et al. v. Pacific Plaza Elite-Alhambra Homeowners Association, et 

al.

Case No.: 22STCV08879

Matter: Motions to Compel Further Responses (4x)

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Irene Young and Jesse Chang

Responding Party: Defendant Pacific Plaza Elite-Alhambra Homeowners Association

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion as to Requests for Production is granted in part.

The Motions as to Form Interrogatories and Request for Admission 

are granted.  

Moving parties 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. 

Plaintiffs Irene Young and Jesse Chang seek to compel further responses from Defendant Pacific Plaza Elite-Alhambra Homeowners Association as to their requests for production, set two, form interrogatories, set two, request for admission no. 15.

1. Request for Admission

Request for Admission no. 15 states, “Admit that YOU have not repaired the defects that were the subject of the CONSTRUCTION DEFECT DISPUTE.”

Previously, Defendant responded: “After a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter contained in this request, admit in part and deny in part.”  The Court compelled a further response because there was no specificity as to what was admitted and denied.

Defendant then served the following amended response that is the subject of the current Motion: “After a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter contained in this request, to the best of Responding Party’s knowledge, the Developer has completed the repairs to Plaintiff’s property and therefore responds: Deny.”

Plaintiffs argue that this is evasive because the request did not relate to “the Developer”, who is never identified in the response anyway.  They also contend that it is unclear whether the phrase “Plaintiff’s property” relates to Plaintiffs’ unit or the entire condominium building that was the subject of the “CONSTRUCTION DEFECT DISPUTE.”

The Motion to Compel is granted.  A further response should be provided in 10 days that (a) admits that Defendant itself did not do the repairs at issue, but (b) denies that the repairs were never done, because the developer, Pacific Plaza Investments, LLC, addressed them.  This would seem to better embody a response that complies with CCP § 2033.220.  The Court declines to award sanctions.

2. Form Interrogatories (2x)

The next Motions pertain to form interrogatory no. 17.1 as it relates to requests for admission nos. 7 and 15.  

Given that the Court has required a further response for RFA no. 15, a further accompanying response should also be provided for FI no. 17.1.

 With respect to request no. 7, the response for form interrogatory no. 17.1 is deficient.  No facts or documents are specifically identified and no contact information is provided for Partners Community Management.  

Thus, the Motions to Compel are granted—further responses are required within 30 days.  The Court awards reduced sanctions to Plaintiffs in the amount of $750.

3. Requests for Production

With respect to the requests for production, Defendant contends that supplemental documents were served such that the Motion is moot.  Defendant, however, never addresses its actual responses.  The Motion is granted as to request nos. 1-7, 9-12, 15-22 because the non-privilege objections lack merit and Defendant should provide updated responses in which documents are identified with Bates numbers.  For its privilege log, Defendant should indicate recipients and authors.  With respect to request nos. 8, 13, 14, 24, and 25, Defendant should provide a response that complies with Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230.  The Motion is denied without prejudice as to request no. 23, which seems to target predominantly privileged matters.  Further responses are to be provided within 30 days.  The Court awards Plaintiffs reduced sanctions in the amount of $750.

Moving parties 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.