Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV27721, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

On August 25, 2022, Plaintiffs Joshua Cliffords and Benjamin Cliffords, individually and as successors in interest to Gloria Cliffords, initiated this action against Defendants, Waterstone Apartments CA, LLC (“Waterstone”), Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc., Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc., and Pria Perea, for the wrongful death of Gloria Cliffords. Plaintiffs allege that Ms. Cliffords was residing in Defendants’ premises when she tripped and fell due to a dangerous condition in the doorway. Ms. Cliffords sustained injuries which ultimately led to her death.

On July 5, 2023, Plaintiffs filed these motions to compel Waterstone to provide further responses to Set One of Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Request for Admissions.

On September 7, 2023, Waterstone filed oppositions to these motions. In the oppositions, Waterstone contends the motions are moot because Waterstone is unaffiliated with the subject premises where the incident took place. As such, Plaintiffs have mistakenly sued Waterstone. To that end, Waterstone asked the Court to deny the motions as moot, or alternatively, to continue these motions for at least 60 days to allow counsel for the parties to resolve this issue.

Plaintiffs have not filed Replies. The Court continued these motions to allow the parties to meet and confer regarding the propriety of Waterstone’s continued participation in this case. The parties have not conveyed to the Court whether they have done so. In addition, Waterstone has not filed substantive opposition to the motions.

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (a), 2031.310, and 2033.290, subdivision (a)(2), parties may move for a further response to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or requests for admission where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general. A party seeking to compel production of documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought.” (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223.) “[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.)

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); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (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, subd. (a)(3)). In lieu of a separate statement, the court may in its discretion allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute. (Code Civ. Pro., § 2030.300(b)(2); Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (b)(2).)

The Court finds that the motions are timely made. A notice of motion to compel must be served, if at all, within 45 days after verified responses, or any verified supplemental responses, were served (extended under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1010.6(a)(3), 1013, if served by mail, overnight delivery, fax or electronically), unless the parties agree in writing to extend the time. (Code Civ. Pro., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) Here, the parties agreed in writing to extend the time to July 5, 2023. (Decl. Allton, ¶ 7, Ex. C.)

The Court also finds that moving Plaintiffs have satisfied their obligation to meet and confer.

Plaintiffs request further responses to form interrogatory numbers 4.1, 14.1, 14.2, 15.1, and 16.1 to 16.6. According to Plaintiffs, Defendant did not respond or stated “unknown” or that the requests are premature.

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.)

Defendant did not respond in this manner. Defendant also did not respond to some of the other interrogatories. Thus, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is granted.

Plaintiffs request further responses to special interrogatory numbers 2-3, 5-6, 8, and 16-18. Plaintiffs state that Defendant either refer to other responses, state that it cannot provide a response to the interrogatories or do not respond.

As discussed above, 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.)

In addition, if the question requires reference to some other document, it should be identified, and its contents summarized so that the answer by itself is fully responsive to the interrogatory. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783-784.)

Defendant did not respond in this manner. Defendant also did not respond to some of the other interrogatories. Thus, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is granted.

Plaintiffs request further responses to requests for production of documents numbers 1-20. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant states that it would only provide documents that are “relevant” and “non-privileged” or refused to respond. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant applies the wrong standard.

Contrary to what Plaintiffs argue, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Thus, Defendant applied the correct standard regarding what it would produce.

Further, a party seeking to compel production of documents must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought, supplied to the court by way of declarations. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223.) Plaintiffs did not argue good cause, nor did they submit declarations in support of good cause.

Thus, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents is denied.

Plaintiffs request further responses to requests for admissions numbers 2, 3, and 6. Plaintiffs state that Defendant did not respond or admit part of the request without admitting or denying the other parts.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions is granted.

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides for sanctions to be imposed for misuse of the discovery process. Misuse of the discovery process includes “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery, [making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery, [making an evasive response to discovery [and] [opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel[...]” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subd. (d) (f) and (h).

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is GRANTED based on unmeritorious objections and evasive responses. Sanctions are imposed against Defendant and counsel of record, jointly and severally, for three motions, in a reasonable amount of $4,000. However, as noted below, these sanctions are offset by the sanctions awarded to Defendants.

Plaintiffs Joshua Cliffords and Benjamin Cliffords’ motions to compel further responses to (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One, (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One, (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One, (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One, and (3) Requests for Admissions, Set One, are GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ motions to compel further responses to Requests for Production Set One, is DENIED.

Plaintiff is to provide further responses to the requests for which the motions were granted within 20 days of the issuance of this order.

On October 31, 2023, Waterstone filed these motions to compel both Plaintiffs to provide further responses to sets one of Waterstone’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions.

On November 7, 2023, Plaintiffs opposed Waterstone’s motion to compel Plaintiff Joshua Cliffords’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One. In the opposition, Plaintiff contended that Waterstone failed to file the motion within 45 days of receiving the responses to discovery. Plaintiffs further contend that the parties are not required to produce signed verifications when the responses contain only objections. Thus, the motions should be denied.

On October 12, 2023, the Court adjudicated whether the 45-day deadline applies. The Court decided it does not.

A motion asking the trial court to decide the same matter previously ruled on is a motion for reconsideration. (See Powell v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1573, 1577.) A non-prevailing party may make a motion to reconsider and enter a different order under the following conditions: (1) brought before the same judge that made the order sought to be reconsidered; (2) made within 10 days after service upon the party of the notice of entry of the order; (3) based on new or different facts, circumstances or law than those before the court at the time of the original ruling; (4) supported by a declaration stating the previous order, by which judge it was made, and the new or different facts, circumstances or law claimed to exist; and (5) the motion must be made and decided before entry of judgment. (Code Civ. Pro., §1008.) Plaintiffs did not meet the second, third, and fourth requirements. Thus, the Court will not consider the oppositions.

The Court also finds that Waterstone satisfied its obligation to meet and confer.

Waterstone requests further responses to form interrogatories numbers 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 4.1, 4.2, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2, and 17.1. According to Waterstone, Plaintiff provided the same boilerplate objection to every interrogatory propounded.

Where general boilerplate objections are made, courts have the authority to compel further responses but not to find a waiver of privilege objections. (Best Products, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189.) “[W]here … the question calls for information which may or may not be privileged, the party asserting the privilege must establish its application before the interrogator is required to show more than basic discovery relevance.” (Gonzalez v. Super. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1548-49.)

The Court agrees with Waterstone that Plaintiffs made general boilerplate objections. Plaintiffs have not justified their objections. Further, while Plaintiffs asserted both the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product privilege, they have not stated why they apply.

Thus, Waterstone’s motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories is granted.

Waterstone requests further responses to special interrogatory numbers 1 through 46. According to Waterstone, Plaintiff provided the same boilerplate objection to every interrogatory propounded.

As discussed above, where general boilerplate objections are made, courts have the authority to compel further responses but not to find a waiver of privilege objections. (Best Products, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189.) “[W]here … the question calls for information which may or may not be privileged, the party asserting the privilege must establish its application before the interrogator is required to show more than basic discovery relevance.” (Gonzalez v. Super. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1548-49.)

Thus, Waterstone’s motions to compel further responses to special interrogatories are granted.

Waterstone requests further responses to requests for production of documents numbers 1to 56 from both plaintiffs. Waterstone states that the requests are relevant and calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Waterstone also states that Plaintiff has asserted boilerplate objections and no substantive response.

As discussed above, a party seeking to compel production of documents must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought, supplied to the court by way of declarations. Here, however, Waterstone did not argue good cause or set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying discovery sought.

Thus, Waterstone’s motions to compel further responses to requests for production of documents are denied.

Waterstone requests further responses to requests for admission numbers 1 through 20. According to Waterstone, Plaintiff provided the same boilerplate objection to every interrogatory propounded.

Thus, Waterstone’s motions to compel further responses to requests for admissions are granted.

Waterstone’s request for sanctions for each of the motions to compel it was forced to bring, except for the motion on the request for production, is GRANTED pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a). Waterstone is awarded reasonable sanctions of $4000, which are offset by the sanctions awarded to Plaintiffs, leaving neither party subject to sanctions.

Waterstone’s motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for admission are GRANTED. Waterstone’s motions to compel further responses to requests for production of documents are DENIED.

Plaintiffs are to provide further responses to the requests for which the motions were granted within 20 days of the issuance of this order.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court