Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC00638, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STLC00638 Hearing Date: February 7, 2024 Dept: 25
Hearing Date: Wednesday, February 07, 2024
Case Name: ALEJANDRA PEREZ v. FULL OF FLAVOR, LLC; PETER TRINH; and DOES 1-10,
Case No.: 23STLC00638
Motion: Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission
Moving Party: Defendant Full of Flavor, LLC ("FF")
Responding Party: Plaintiff Alejandra Perez
Notice: OK
Defendant Full of Flavor, LLC's Request for Sanctions is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in part for $950.00.
DEFENDANT FF AND DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, ARE ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $950.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF THIS COURT'S ORDER.
SERVICE:
[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK
[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK
[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK
OPPOSITION: Filed as of January 16, 2024 [ ] Late [ ] None
REPLY: Filed as of January 31, 2024 [ ] Late [ ] None
BACKGROUND
On January 26, 2023, Plaintiff Alejandra Perez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Full of Flavor, LLC (“FF”) and Peter Trinh (“Trinh”) (collectively “Defendants”) for an alleged violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Acts.
On March 17, 2023, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, the Court entered default against Defendants FF and Trinh. (3-17-23 Request for Entry of Default.) Default judgment was entered for Plaintiff and against Defendants on April 3, 2023, in the amount of $5,165.60. (4-3-23 Judgment.)
On May 8, 2023, Defendant FF filed a Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment. Plaintiff filed an Opposition on May 12, 2023.
On June 6, 2023, Defendant FF filed a motion to Set Aside Default Judgment (“Motion”). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on June 8, 2023, and Defendant FF filed a Reply on June 26. 2023.
Defendant FF filed an Answer on June 26, 2023, and Defendant Trinh filed an Answer on July 3, 2023.
On July 3, 2023, Judge Rolf M. Treu recused himself from the case due to a prior business relationship with Plaintiff’s counsel. Accordingly, the hearing on the Motion was continued to August 07, 2023. On August 07, 2023, the Court Granted Defendants’ motion to set aside default judgment and vacated the default and default judgment entered against Defendants.
On January 02, 2024, Defendant FF filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admissions. Plaintiff replies in opposition. Defendant FF responds.
MOVING PARTY POSITION
Defendant FF pray for the Court to issue an order compelling Plaintiff to serve further responses to Defendant FF's Requests for Admissions and the imposition of sanctions against Alejandra Perez for $1,074.15. Defendant FF argues that their request is relevant because it pertains to Defendant FF's defense against Plaintiff’s suit alleging violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Defendant FF further argue that Plaintiff’s refusal to provide appropriate responses is meritless because they do not comply with CCP § 2033.220.
OPPOSITION
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Court should deny Defendant FF and impose monetary sanctions against Defendant FF and Defendant FF’s counsel for $1,050.00. Plaintiff argues that she has appropriately answered and has made relevant objections to Defendants Interrogatories. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff can’t admit or deny Defendants’ request because it contains several vague, ambiguous, and uncertain words subject to multiple interpretations and meanings. Further, Plaintiff contends that the request exceeds the scope of permissible discovery because its subject matter has nothing to do with the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint, which is based on her inability to learn about the menu items on Defendant FF's website due to its incompatibility with screen reader software. Plaintiff also argues that sanctions against Defendant FF and Defendant FF's counsel are necessary as Defendant FF's motion is frivolous, and Defendant FF’s request for sanctions is unwarranted.
REPLY
In reply, Defendant FF reasserts its argument in the moving papers and declines to respond to Plaintiff’s opposition and requests for sanctions, reasoning that Plaintiff’s analysis does not deserve a response.
ANALYSIS
I. Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (a), provides that “[o]n receipt of a particular response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.”
Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise the propounding party waives the right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b).)
Finally, Cal. 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. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).
II. Discussion
A. Notice of the Motions
Notice of the motion to compel further responses must be given “within 45 days of service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing,” otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).)
Here, Defendant FF's Requests for Admissions was served on Plaintiff on October 27, 2023. (Ara Sahelian Decl., ¶2; Exh. A.) Defendant FF received Plaintiff’s responses on November 13, 2023, and followed up with a meet and confer correspondence on November 21, 2023. (Id. ¶ 5.) That same day Plaintiff responded that she would not be amending her responses. (Id.; Exh. B.) The Motion was timely filed and served on January 02, 2024.
B. Meet and Confer Requirement
Next, the Motion must be accompanied by a “meet and confer” declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b)(1).)
As noted above, the supporting declaration demonstrates an effort by Defendant FF's counsel to obtain further responses from Plaintiff after service of the original responses failed to yield supplemental responses. (Sahelian Decl. ¶ 5, Exhs. A & B.) Thus, the meet and confer requirement is satisfied.
C. Separate Statement Requirement (CRC Rule 3.1345)
Finally, Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345 requires all motions or responses involving further discovery to 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. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a).)
Here, the Motion is accompanied by a separate statement. (01/02/24 Separate Statement.)
Defendant FF moves to compel further responses to Defendant FF's Requests for Admissions No. 5 because Plaintiff’s response to the request consisted only of a meritless objection.
Request for Admission No. 5.
Request for Admission No. 5 request that Plaintiff “ADMIT that it has been YOUR custom, during the past three years, not to patronize the businesses that you sue, even after the “barriers” you allege in YOUR complaints have been removed.”
Defendant FF argues that Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admissions No. 5 is unresponsive, and that the information is relevant to Plaintiff’s burden to prove she was and will be a bona fide customer of Defendant FF's business. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s intent to return to all the locations she has sued presents a question of her state of mind.
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the request goes beyond the scope of discovery because there could be hundreds of establishments where plaintiff, or anyone else, could have been “deterred” from patronizing over the course of several years for any number of reasons. Moreover, Plaintiff points out that her Complaint is based entirely upon her inability to access information appearing on Defendant FF’s website, not about being deterred from patronizing Defendant’s restaurant.
In reply, Defendant FF argues that Plaintiff is being evasive and Plaintiff’s intent to patronize the business she sues is central to whether she can establish standing. Defendant FF argues that Plaintiff has the burden of proof in establishing actual possession of intent to make use of a business’s services to prevail on a claim for violation of Unruh Act. Defendant FF relies on the holdings in White v. Suare, Inc., to support the proposition that Plaintiff has the burden of showing that she visited Defendant FF’s business website and intended to make use of the Defendant FF's business services. (White v. Suare, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1019, 1032.)
The Court finds that Defendant FF does not have good cause for the request for admittance. Here, while the Court agrees that Plaintiff’ intent is an important aspect of her Unruh claim, the Court finds that the question as presented would not be relevant in determining whether Plaintiff had the intent to make use of Defendant FF's business website. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objection was meritorious.
Therefore, the Court finds that a further response without objections is not required.
Accordingly, Defendant FF's Motion to Compel Responses to the Requests for Admissions is DENIED.
D. Sanctions
Here, Defendant FF requests that sanctions be entered against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $1,074.15 based on an anticipated 2.25 hours of attorney time spent drafting the motion at a rate of $450 per hour and $61.65 in court fees. (Sahelian Decl. ¶ 7.)
In opposition, Plaintiff requests sanctions be entered against Defendant FF and Defendant FF's counsel for $1,050.00 in attorney’s fees for 2.1 hours in relation to the motion at a rate of $500.00 per hour. (Morse Mehrban Decl. ¶¶ 2-7.)
Given that Defendant FF has unsuccessfully made the motion, the Court must issue sanctions against Defendant FF under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.290(d). Given Plaintiff would not be able to respond to Defendant FF’s reply, the Court awards sanctions as follows: 1.9 hours of attorney time in relation to drafting, preparing, and arguing the motion at a rate of $500.00 per hour for a total of $950.00.
III. Conclusion
Defendant Full of Flavor, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admissions is DENIED.
Defendant Full of Flavor, LLC's Request for Sanctions is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in part for $950.00.
DEFENDANT FULL OF FLAVOR, LLC AND DEFENDANT FULL OF FLAVOR, LLC'S COUNSEL, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, ARE ORDERED TO PAY $950.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.
Moving Party is ordered to give notice.
Case Name: ALEJANDRA PEREZ v. FULL OF FLAVOR, LLC; PETER TRINH; and DOES 1-10,
Case No.: 23STLC00638
Motion: Motions to Compel Further Interrogatory Answers
Moving Party: Defendant Full of Flavor, LLC
Responding Party: Plaintiff Alejandra Perez
Notice: OK
AMENDED Tentative Ruling: Defendant Full of Flavor, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Interrogatory Answers is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
PLAINTIFF ALEJANDRA PEREZ IS ORDERED TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 106.2, 111.1 AND 111.2 AND
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1.
PLAINTIFF IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORY 102.10, 109.1, 112.4 AND 112.5 AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES NO. 2 AND 3.
Defendant Full of Flavor, LLC’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.
SERVICE:
[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK
[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK
[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK
OPPOSITION: Filed as of January 24, 2024 [ ] Late [ ] None
REPLY: Filed as of January 30, 2024 [ ] Late [ ] None
BACKGROUND
On January 26, 2023, Plaintiff Alejandra Perez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Full of Flavor, LLC (“FF”) and Peter Trinh (“Trinh”) (collectively “Defendants”) for an alleged violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Acts.
On March 17, 2023, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, the Court entered default against Defendants FF and Trinh. (3-17-23 Request for Entry of Default.) Default judgment was entered for Plaintiff and against Defendants on April 3, 2023, in the amount of $5,165.60. (4-3-23 Judgment.)
On May 8, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment. Plaintiff filed an Opposition on May 12, 2023.
On June 6, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to Set Aside Default Judgment (“Motion”). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on June 8, 2023, and Defendants filed a Reply on June 26. 2023.
Defendant FF filed an Answer on June 26, 2023, and Defendant Trinh filed an Answer on July 3, 2023.
On July 3, 2023, Judge Rolf M. Treu recused himself from the case due to a prior business relationship with Plaintiff’s counsel. Accordingly, the hearing on the Motion was continued to August 07, 2023. On August 07, 2023, the Court Granted Defendants’ motion to set aside default judgment and vacated the default and default judgment entered against Defendants.
On January 02, 2024, Defendant FF filed the instant motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories.
MOVING PARTY POSITION
Defendant FF prays for the Court to issue an order compelling Plaintiff to serve further responses to Defendant FF’s Interrogatories and for the imposition of sanctions against Alejandra Perez for $1,749.15. Defendant FF argues that their request is relevant because it pertains to Defendant FF’s defense against Plaintiff’s suit. Defendant FF further argues that Plaintiff’s refusal to provide appropriate responses is meritless because the responses do not comply with CCP § 2030.220.
OPPOSITION
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Court should deny Defendant FF’s and impose monetary sanctions against Defendant FF and its counsel for $3,550.00. Plaintiff argues that she has properly answered and has made relevant objections to Defendant FF’s Interrogatories. Plaintiff additionally argues that sanctions against Defendant FF and its counsel is necessary as Defendant FF’s motion is frivolous and Defendant FF’s request for sanctions is unwarranted.
REPLY
In reply, Defendant FF reasserts its arguments made in their moving papers and declines to respond, noting Plaintiff’s opposition and request for sanctions as reasoning that Plaintiff’s analysis is not deserving of a response.
ANALYSIS
I. Legal Standard
Responses to interrogatories must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a).) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, then it must be answered to the extent possible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(b).) “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(c).)
Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that” the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2)¿an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code of Civ. Proc. §¿2030.300(a).)
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(c).)
The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration “showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 2016.040, 2030.300(b).)
Finally, 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. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(2)).
II. Discussion
A. Notice of the Motion
Notice of the motion to compel further responses must be given “within 45 days of service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing,” otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); § 2031.310, subd. (d).)
Here, Defendant FF’s Interrogatories were served on Plaintiff on October 27, 2023. (Ara Sahelian Decl., ¶2; Exh. A.) Defendant FF received Plaintiff’s responses on November 13, 2023, and followed up with a meet and confer correspondence on November 21, 2023. (Id. ¶ 5.) That same day Plaintiff responded that she would not be amending her responses. (Id.; Exh. B.) The Motion was timely filed and served on January 02, 2024.
B. Meet and Confer Requirement
Next, the motion must be accompanied by a “meet and confer” declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)
As noted above, the supporting declaration demonstrates an effort by Defendant FF’s counsel to obtain further responses from Plaintiff after service of the original responses failed to yield supplemental responses. (Sahelian Decl. ¶ 5, Exhs. A & B.) Thus, the meet and confer requirement, therefore, is satisfied.
C. Separate Statement Requirement (CRC Rule 3.1345)
Finally, Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345 requires all motions or responses involving further discovery to 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. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a).)
Here, the Motion is accompanied by a separate statement. (01/02/24 Separate Statement.)
Defendant FF moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1-3 and Form Interrogatories Set One, Nos. 102.10, 106.2, 109.1, 111.1, 111.2, 112.4, and 112.5 because Plaintiff’s responses to the requests consisted only of meritless objections.
i. Form Interrogatories
Interrogatory No. 102.10
Interrogatory No. 102.10 requests that Plaintiff “Describe any physical, emotional, or mental disability or condition that you had that may have contributed to the occurrence of the INCIDENT.”
Defendant FF argues that Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory 102.10 is incomplete, in that Plaintiff must describe the precise nature and extent of plaintiff’s visual impairment. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that she fully answered the request by stating that the disability or condition was her blindness. “Blindness substantially limits seeing” and is, therefore, a disability under 28 C.F.R. § 36.105(d)(2)(iii)(B).
The Court finds this response to be sufficient. Plaintiff provides specific details justifying her response as she answers the interrogatory by stating her physical disability which is her blindness.
Thus, a further response without objections is not required.
Interrogatory No. 106.2
Interrogatory No. 106.2 requests that Plaintiff “Describe your present complaints about each injury or illness related to the INCIDENT.”
Defendant FF argues that Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory 106.2 is incomplete. Plaintiff must describe the precise nature and extent of each injury or illness related to the incident since she is seeking damages. In opposition, Plaintiff argues she truthfully answered that she has none and that Plaintiff can’t fabricate a non-existing complaint about a non-existing injury or illness. Further Plaintiff asserts it interprets the phrase “injury or illness” to mean a physical injury or damage to Plaintiff. From that meaning, Plaintiff has suffered none.
Responses to interrogatories must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) Plaintiff’s response is not straightforward and does not provide a sufficient explanation for why she gave no response to the interrogatory. The information sought is directly relevant as it may aid in determining liability in this action. The Court points out that Black’s Law Dictionary defines injury as, “The violation of another's legal right, for which the law provides a remedy; a wrong or injustice.” (INJURY, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).) Clearly Defendant FF’s question is relevant to understanding the violation or injury Plaintiff alleges to have suffered. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges accessibility issues stemming from her inability to read Defendant FF’s online menu. Yet Plaintiff simply responds ‘None’ to this interrogatory. However, the Court finds that Plaintiff can provide a more complete answer regarding the injury claimed. Thus, Plaintiff must provide a complete and straight forward answer that responds to the interrogatory.
A further response without objections must be served.
Interrogatory No. 109.1
Interrogatory No. 109.1 requests that Plaintiff “Describe each other item of damage or cost that you attribute to the INCIDENT, stating the dates of occurrence and the amount.”
Defendant FF argues that Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory 109.1 is non-responsive, evasive and incomplete because it fails to describe each item of damage or cost that Plaintiff attributes to the incident. Citing Civil Code § 52 required proof of actual damages defined as special and general damages. Defendant FF further cites Beeman v. Burling which held that general damages refer to damages from harm or loss that are subjective or not directly quantifiable. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that she states that her damages incurred on October 1, 2022, are those set by Civil Code section 52(a), part of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, in the amount of $4,000. Plaintiff further argues that case law provided in Koire v. Metro Car Wash and Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc. hold that Plaintiff need not prove actual damages to recover statutory damages.
The Court finds this response to be sufficient. Plaintiff provides specific details justifying her response. However, the Court finds Munson v. Del Taco, Inc. to be persuasive here as the Supreme Court of California has held that a party only need prove that there was discrimination based on disability. (Munson v. Del Taco, Inc. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 661.) Here, Plaintiff correctly states that she would not need to provide any further answer because the request would not be relevant under Civil Code § 52.
Thus, a further response without objections is not required.
Interrogatory Nos. 111.1 and 111.2
Interrogatory No. 111.1 requests that Plaintiff “Identify each personal injury claim that YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF have made within the past ten years and the dates.”
Interrogatory No. 111.2 requests that Plaintiff “State the case name, court, and case number of each personal injury action or claim filed by YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF within the past ten years.”
Defendant FF argues that Plaintiff’s response to Form interrogatories 111.1 and 111.2 is non-responsive, evasive and incomplete. The information regarding those other claims and alleged harm suffered are relevant to Defendant FF because Unruh/ADA claims are personal injury claims. Defendant FF asserts that without having the answers to form interrogatory no. 111.1, Defendant FF is deprived of relevant information on Plaintiff’s past claims of injury or harm. Plaintiff’s other claims are relevant to her present injury claim of difficulty, at least for the purposes of discovery, and likely for trial. The lawsuits are relevant to the present claim of personal injury damage. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that she is not claiming any sort of personal injury as a result of the incident that gave rise to this action. According to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff’s prayer for statutory damages under Civil Code section 52(a) is based entirely upon her inability to learn about Defendant FF’s menu items and not any sort of personal injury. The Unruh Civil Rights Act, the statute at issue in this case, is a strict liability one and requires no proof of damage, loss, or injury. (Civ. Code, § 52(a), “in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000);” see Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, 33-34.) Plaintiffs assert that Civil Code section 55.56 has no application to this case because it does not contain a “construction-related accessibility claim.”
The objections asserted for these Interrogatories are not meritorious. First, Plaintiff’s argument of relevance fails in this case as Defendant FF shows that the responses are relevant as Defendant asserts that it needs the information to determine whether Plaintiff is a serial litigant and brings the suit under the proper basis. The information requested is directly relevant as it goes to the determination about the merits of Plaintiff’s case. The Court further notes that Plaintiff argues that it has no personal injury claims and that such a question goes beyond the scope of the case. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff can provide a response to the interrogatory that clearly states her position in a further response.
Thus, a further response without objections must be served.
Interrogatory No. 112.4 and 112.5
Interrogatory No. 112.4 requests that Plaintiff “Identify each document or photograph that describes or depicts any place, object, or individual concerning the INCIDENT or plaintiff’s injuries, or attach a copy. (if you do not attach a copy, state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who had the original document or photograph or a copy.)”
Interrogatory No. 112.5 requests that Plaintiff “Identify each other item of physical evidence that shows how the INCIDENT occurred or the nature or extent of plaintiff’s injuries, and state the location of each item, and the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has it.”
Defendant FF argues that Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory 112.4 is also unresponsive and evasive, in that “all such items” are not individually identified by describing or depicting any place, object, or individual concerning the incident, or plaintiff’s injuries, on the documents Plaintiff provided. Defendant FF argues that Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory 112.5 is likewise unresponsive and evasive, in that “all such items” are not individually identified that show how the incident occurred or the nature or extent of plaintiff’s injuries. In opposition, Plaintiff states that the documents and evidence in question consisted entirely of the digital and electronic files and folders making up and constituting Defendant FF’s website at www.cultsantamonica.com, as referenced in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff explains that since these e-files and e-folders could not be physically “attached” to Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses, they were produced electronically twice – first on November 13, 2023, and, again, on November 14, 2023; defense counsel acknowledged receiving them on the latter date. (Mehrban Decl., infra, ¶ 2.) Plaintiff further states that as it stands today, Defendant FF has every item of evidence that Plaintiff has. (Id.)
The Court finds the response sufficient as Plaintiff has stated that she has provided the attachments electronically to Defendant FF and that it has acknowledged receipt.
Thus, a further response without objections is not required.
ii. Special Interrogatories
Special Interrogatory No. 1
Special Interrogatory No. 1 requests that “For each lawsuit YOU identified in YOUR response to Form Interrogatory 111.1, served concurrently, state whether YOU provided testimony under oath, by way of a declaration, a deposition, or trial.”
Defendant FF argues that Plaintiff’s response is unacceptable. Although Plaintiff objected that the information requested is irrelevant to the subject matter, and did so to Form Interrogatory 111.1, Plaintiff has a duty to respond as Plaintiff’s claim is a claim for personal injury. Form Interrogatory 111.1 has been created by the Judicial Council for a reason. It is non-objectionable. Therefore, any documents identified in 111.1 must be produced. Plaintiff does not provide a reason for why she does not adequately respond to this Special Interrogatory.
Thus, a further response without objections must be served.
Special Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 3
Special Interrogatory No. 2 requests that Plaintiff “State ALL FACTS showing that you have returned to patronize the businesses YOU sued in the past three years, in which YOU alleged that YOU were deterred from patronizing.”
Special Interrogatory No. 3 requests that Plaintiff “Identify all DOCUMENTS showing that you have returned to patronize the businesses YOU sued in the past three years, in which YOU alleged that YOU were deterred from patronizing.”
Defendant FF argue that Plaintiff’s responses are incomplete because, similar to Defendant FF’s argument for Special Interrogatory No. 1, Plaintiff has a duty to respond as Plaintiff’s claim is a claim for personal injury, and the information on other actions filed is relevant. The case information, including the number of cases, locations, dates and times of the alleged past incidents (visits to the properties), directly bear on Plaintiff’s travels, which will provide circumstantial evidence relevant to her bona fide intent to return to the businesses sued. Plaintiff’s intent to return to all the locations she has sued presents a question of her state of mind and thus necessary to allow Defendant FF to fully develop the relevant evidence in her case. Defendant FF additionally argues that Plaintiff’s response to Special Interrogatory No. 3 is evasive. Although Plaintiff objected that the information requested is irrelevant to the subject matter, the information is relevant to Plaintiff’s burden to prove she was and will be a bona fide customer of Defendant FF’s business.
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the request goes beyond the scope of discovery because there could be hundreds of establishments where plaintiff, or anyone else, could have been “deterred” from patronizing over the course of several years for any number of reasons. Moreover, Plaintiff points out that her Complaint is based entirely upon her inability to access information appearing on Defendant’s website, not about being deterred from patronizing Defendant FF’s restaurant.
The Court finds this response to be sufficient. Plaintiff provides specific details justifying her objection that Defendant FF request goes beyond the scope of discovery and expects her to speculate future action. The Court fails to see how this would be relevant to the action because the suit surrounds Plaintiff’s inability to access information in her previous visitation of Defendant’s establishment and not whether the previous experience has deterred her from desiring to visit Defendant’s or other establishments. Plaintiff’s response is complete and straightforward as required by the Discovery Act and Plaintiff has justified her general objections in opposition.
Thus, a further response without objections is not required.
D. Sanctions
Here, Defendant FF requests that sanctions be entered against Defendant FF in the amount of $1,749.15 based on an anticipated 3.75 hours of attorney time spent on the motion at a rate of $450 per hour and $61.65 in court fees. (Sahelian Decl. ¶ 7.)
Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $3,550.00 per motion based on 7.1 hours of attorney time billed at an hourly rate of $500.00. (Mehrban Decl., infra, ¶¶ 3 - 9.)
Given that the Motion is granted in part and denied in part, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has unsuccessfully opposed the Motion. Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010 and 2023.030 lists the available discovery sanctions but do not independently authorize a court to impose specific sanctions. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers (2022) 84¿Cal.App.5th¿466, 503-504.) Thus, a court’s authority to impose the sanctions specified in §§¿2023.010 and 2023.030 must arise from a statute governing a particular method of discovery. (Id.) Here, since neither party has successfully made or opposed the motion, the Court order will not reach the issue of sanctions. For this reason, the Court does not grant sanctions for misuse of discovery solely based on § 2023.010. Moreover, the Court finds that given the extensive meet and confer efforts by both parties, sanctions are not warranted in this case.
III. Conclusion
Defendant Full of Flavor, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Interrogatory Answers is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories 106.2, 111.1 and 111.2 and Special Interrogatory No. 1.
Plaintiff IS NOT required to provide further responses to Form Interrogatory 102.10, 109.1, 112.4 and 112.5 and Special Interrogatories No. 2 and 3.
Defendant Full of Flavor, LLC’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.
Moving Party is ordered to give notice.