Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC07940, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC07940    Hearing Date: December 18, 2023    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Monday December 18, 2023

Case Name:                             SURESH C. PATHAK v. ARACHANA MAZRA

Case No.:                                22STLC07940

Motion:                                   Motion for Leave to Propound Additional Discovery

Moving Party:                         Defendant Arachana Mazara

Responding Party:                   Plaintiff Suresh C. Pathak

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Defendant Arachana Mazara’s Motion for Leave to Propound Additional Discovery is GRANTED.

OPPOSITION:          Filed as of December 12, 2023                       [   ] Late          [   ] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of December 12, 2023              [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff Suresh Pathak (“Plaintiff”) filed two causes of action against Defendant Arachana Mazra (“Defendant”) for breach of contract and for common counts.

Defendant filed its Answer and demand for a jury trial on August 28, 2023.

On September 21, 2023, the Court sustained Defendant’s Demurrer and allowed Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.

On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint under the same causes of action.

On October 18, 2023, Defendant filed a demurrer as to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. The Court overruled the demurrer on November 17, 2023. Defendant provided its Answer to the first amended complaint on December 07, 2023.

On October 24, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Leave to Produce Additional Discovery.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Defendant requests the Court for leave to propound additional discovery on the grounds that Defendant’s counsel mistakenly propounded its initial discovery, over the jurisdictional limit in limited civil cases. Defendant argues the request is necessary as Defendant’s counsel has done everything to resolve the issue and that without this correction the Defendant would be unable to make a proper defense.

OPPOSITION

            In opposition, Plaintiff argues the Court should deny the motion as Defendant has failed to meet his burden in showing that additional discovery is required to effectively defend the action and that it has used all applicable discovery in good faith.

REPLY

            No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          Legal Standard  

In limited jurisdiction cases, a party may propound to each adverse party any combination of 35 of the following: (1) interrogatories with no subparts, (2) demands to produce documents, and (3) requests for admission with no subparts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 94, subd. (a).) Parties are also allowed one oral or written deposition and may serve on any person a subpoena deuces tecum. (Code Civ. Proc., § 94, subds. (b), (c).)  

“The court may, on noticed motion and subject to such terms and conditions as are just, authorize a party to conduct additional discovery, but only upon a showing that the moving party will be unable to prosecute or defend the action effectively without the additional discovery. In making a determination under this section, the court shall take into account whether the moving party has used all applicable discovery in good faith and whether the party has attempted to secure the additional discovery by stipulation or by means other than formal discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 95, subd. (a).) (Italics added.)  

II.        Discussion

Defendant argues that the Court should allow Defendant to propound additional discovery as it would be patently unjust not to allow due to mistake of counsel. Moreover, the motion is necessary considering Plaintiff’s refusal to waive his objections under CCP Section 94.

Here, Defendant provides the Court with the declaration of Defendant's counsel. (Marat Antonyan Decl.) Defendant’s counsel states that he served Plaintiff with a first set of discovery requests on August 08, 2023. (Id. ¶ 3. Ex 1.) Plaintiff provided responses to only 35 discovery requests and objected to the rest under CCP § 94. (Id. ¶ 5, Ex. 2.) Defendant’s counsel declares that after meeting and conferring, Plaintiff’s counsel instructed Defendant’s counsel to provide reduced discovery demands, but after Defendant’s counsel complied, Plaintiff’s counsel refused to respond to any of the amended discovery requests citing CCP Section 94. (Id. ¶¶ 6-7, Ex. 3.)

In opposition Plaintiff declares that in his telephonic conference with Defendant’s counsel, on September 15, 2023, Plaintiff explained that he had already responded to 43 interrogatories and was not obligated to respond to additional interrogatories. (Suresh Pathak Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff declares that he asked counsel to send legal authority in support of Defendant counsel’s position that it was entitled to submit a reduced number of amended interrogatories. (Id. ¶ 7.) Instead of sending the requested legal authority, however, Defendant merely sent over 34 additional interrogatories. (Id. ¶ 8.)

First, the Court notes that Defendant has not used all discovery available to him. Indeed, Defendant could still use one oral or written deposition and may serve on any person a subpoena deuces tecum. Additionally, Defendant did not exhaust its special discovery procedures such as requesting a statement of witnesses and evidence under Section 96. However, using all "applicable discovery" is just one factor the Court should consider; the analysis does not stop there. Here, Defendant avers that he has attempted every means available to fix his mistake with Plaintiff before coming to the Court. Defendant argues that since it sought to remedy the issue between the parties with no resolution agreed to, Defendant would be faced with the possibility of being unable to mount an effective defense.

Moreover, instead of meeting and conferring with Defendant's counsel and pointing out the discovery limitations before answering, Plaintiff answered 43 form interrogatories and denied the others. In doing so, Plaintiff only provided the most basic information while avoiding answering any of Defendant's special interrogatories. Thus, the Court finds that Defendant has satisfied his burden under CCP Section 95.  

III.       Conclusion

            Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Propound Additional Discovery is GRANTED.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.