Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 22NWCV00203 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00203, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00203 Hearing Date: May 16, 2023 Dept: C

Shayler v. 13542 gateway, llc

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00203

HEARING: 5/16/23 @ 9:30 AM

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant 13542 Gateway, LLC’s motions to compel further responses to special interrogatories and requests for documents are GRANTED but limited to information and documents within the previous three years. The motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is DENIED as moot.

The request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant 13542 Gateway, LLC moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and documents request and for a sanctions in the amount of $4,684.95 pursuant to CCP § 2030.300 and 2031.310

Plaintiff James Shayler (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant 13542 Gateway, LLC (Defendant) alleging violations of the ADA and Unruh Act related to noncompliant marking for a parking space at Defendant’s small strip mall center. Plaintiff identified himself as a high frequency litigant and had filed 156 complaints in the prior year.

The court finds the Defendant adequately met and conferred.

Legal Standard

CCP §§ 2030.300 and 2031.310 allow a party to file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories and 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 by a meet and confer declaration. (CCP §§ 2030.300(b) and 2031.310(b).)

The scope of discovery is “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. (CCP § 2017.010.) Generally, “information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.” (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.) Materials or information need not be admissible to be discoverable. (E.g. Glenfed Dev. Corp., supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at 1117 [“Admissibility is not the test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.”].)

A party may request discovery of public records, including information regarding prior lawsuits filed by a party, form the opposing party if it is more convenient to request the information from the opposing party. (City of Alhambra v. Superior Court (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 513, 521.)

Form Interrogatory No. 2.8

This interrogatory seeks information related to felony convictions. Plaintiff initially objected to the interrogatory on the grounds it was overbroad; unduly burdensome; harassing; and seeks irrelevant, confidential, private, and proprietary information. Since the filing of the motion to compel further responses, Plaintiff has served a supplemental response: “Yes. Plaintiff has not been convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude.” Thus, the motion to compel further is moot. If Defendant believes that the response is insufficient as it indicated in its reply, it must first meet and confer with Plaintiff and then it may file a motion to compel.

Special Interrogatory Nos. 6-8

These Interrogatories request that Plaintiff describe all lawsuits Plaintiff has filed with ADA or Unruh Act causes of action, state the results of each lawsuit, and describe any deposition taken as a plaintiff.

Plaintiff objected on the grounds that each interrogatory is overbroad, requires Plaintiff to produce voluminous documents, requires plaintiff to produce publicly available information, and is irrelevant.

The interrogatories are within the scope of discovery because the information about the lawsuits is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff argues that the interrogatories are irrelevant because the information sought would not be admissible at trial. However, this is the incorrect standard for discovery. The scope of discovery also includes evidence reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant contends that information from the prior lawsuits is reasonably calculated to contain prior testimony under oath relevant to the case or the issue of standing. Thus, Defendant’s interrogatories are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

The interrogatories are not objectionable as to requesting equally available information. Plaintiff has easier access to the information regarding his prior lawsuits and parts of the information sought are not public record.

Additionally, Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 7 are not overbroad as to scope because they are limited to lawsuits Plaintiff has filed which contain ADA or Unruh Act causes of action. Interrogatory No. 8 is overbroad as to scope because it does not limit its request to ADA or Unruh Act lawsuits. Interrogatories Nos. 6 to 8 are overbroad as to time because they do not limit the time period for the information sought. Thus, the interrogatories are overbroad as to time and will be limited to the previous three years and Interrogatory No. 8 is overbroad as to scope and will be limited to lawsuits with ADA or Unruh Act causes of action.

RPD Nos. 10 and 11

The requests seek all complaints filed by Plaintiff with ADA or Unruh causes of action and any deposition transcripts from his deposition in such cases.

Plaintiff objected on the grounds that the prior lawsuits are irrelevant, oppressive, and overbroad as to scope and time, among other objections. Plaintiff stated that Request No. 10 sought documents that were equally available.

In opposition, Plaintiff states that the requests would necessitate the production of extraneous and voluminous materials. Plaintiff offers no evidence as to the amount of material these requests would seek. Thus, the Court cannot make a determination as to the amount of material Plaintiff would have to produce.

For the reasons previously mentioned, the requests are within the scope of discovery because documents related to lawsuits with ADA or Unruh causes of action are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

The requests are overbroad as to time but not as to scope because they are limited in scope as to lawsuits with ADA or Unruh causes of action but do not limit the requests to any time frame. Thus, the requests will be limited to the previous three years.

Accordingly, the motions to compel further responses to special interrogatories and requests for documents are GRANTED but limited to information and documents within the previous three years. The motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is DENIED as moot.

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, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h), 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Given the court’s mixed ruling, the request for sanctions is DENIED.