Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 20NWCV00475, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 20NWCV00475, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20NWCV00475 Hearing Date: October 4, 2023 Dept: C

Ruano v. equity smart home loans

CASE NO.: 20NWCV00475

HEARING: 10/4/23 @ 9:30 and 10:30 AM

Defendant Equity Smart Home Loan Inc.’s Motions to Compel Further Responses are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Equity Smart Home Loans, Inc. (“Equity Smart”) moves for an order compelling further responses to its discovery requests.

Background

Plaintiff Alfonso Ruano filed a Complaint against Equity Smart and Pablo Martinez for breach of contract. Equity Smart filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff alleging breach of contract, interference, conversion, and unfair business practices for alleged violation of an exclusivity contract signed by Plaintiff in March 2019.

Legal Standard

CCP § 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(b).)

Discussion

Form Interrogatories

Equity Smart seeks to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 9.1, 9.2, 15.1, and 17.1. Plaintiff agrees in his opposition to supplement Nos. 9.1, 9.2, and 15.1. Plaintiff’s responses to 17.1 will be covered with the Motion for Further Responses to Requests for Admission.

Plaintiff objected to Nos. 2.2, 2.5, and 2.6, which seek basic background information regarding the party, on privacy grounds. Plaintiff’s privacy objections are overruled. Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 2.2, 2.5, and 2.6.

Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff served further responses to Equity Smart’s Special Interrogatories on August 2, 2023 which renders this Motion moot. (Dominguez Decl., Ex. 1.)

Requests for Admission

Equity Smart seeks to compel further responses to Requests for Admissions Nos. 19-37 and the accompanying Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. Plaintiff objected to each Request on the grounds that it is irrelevant, unintelligible, repetitive of other Requests, burdensome and oppressive, violates the attorney work-product doctrine, and seeks privileged information.

Plaintiff’s responses to each Request are improper. Plaintiff’s unintelligible objections are overruled because “where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Ca.3d 771, 783.) Further, “[i]f only a part of a request for admission is objectionable, the remainder of the request shall be answered.” (CCP § 2033.230.) Thus, Equity Smart’s requests to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 19-37 are granted. Additionally, Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to the correspondent Form Interrogatory 17.1.

Additionally, Equity Smart seeks to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory No 17.1 as to Requests Nos. 1 and 7. Request No. 1 requests that Plaintiff admit that Mr. Martinez did not give Plaintiff an ownership interest in Equity Smart. Plaintiff responded “Pablo Martinez agreed to transfer ownership interest in [Equity Smart] through a merger agreement between he and [Plaintiff]” to subpart (b) and “[d]ocuments will be identified in responses to demand for production of documents.” Plaintiff’s response is insufficient because it does not identify the merger agreement. Further, Plaintiff must refer to Section 2030.230 and “specify the writings” “in sufficient detail” to supplement its response to interrogatories with attached documents. (CCP § 2030.230.) Plaintiff states that he will supplement his response to subpart (c). Thus, Equity Smart’s requests to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories No. 17.1 for Requests for Admission No. 1 and 7 are granted.

Requests for Production

Equity Smart seeks to compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 12, and 13.

As to all Requests Plaintiff is ordered to supplement his responses by identifying “with particularity any document … falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.” (CCP § 2031.240(b)(1).)

Plaintiff states that he will produce responsive documents to Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 prior to the hearing. However, he is ordered to supplement his responses to comply with the Code. He must identify each document with the specific request number it responds to. (CCP § 2031.280.)

Plaintiff’s objections to failure to provide notice under CCP § 1985.3(b)(3) as to Nos. 8 and 9 are overruled because the Section applies to subpoenas and not Requests for Production. Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to provide a further response to Requests Nos. 8 and 9.

Plaintiff’s relevancy objection to No. 10 is overruled because documents related to “any monies YOU received from HOMEFIRST from August 2018 through March 2020” are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to prove the Cross-Complaint’s allegations that Plaintiff breached the exclusivity agreement which was entered on March 2019. Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to provide a further response to Request No. 10.

Plaintiff’s unintelligibility objection to Requests Nos. 12 and 13 is overruled because a person, especially an attorney, knows what documents the party identified in their response to interrogatories. Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 12 and 13.

Sanctions

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories or demand for production of documents unless the party subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h), and 2033.290(d).)

Equity Smart seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record for each of its four motions in the total amount of $8,880.00 consisting of four hours of meeting and conferring, ten hours preparing the four motions, and six hours reviewing the oppositions, preparing replies, and attending the hearing at a rate of $420 per hour and $240.00 for the filing fees for each motion. The Court grants Equity Smart’s request in the reduced amount of $7,200.00.

Accordingly, Equity Smart’s Motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth above. Equity Smart is to provide further responses within 30 days of this Order. Equity Smart’s request for sanctions is GRANTED against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $7,200.00. The sanction is to be paid within 30 days of this Order.