Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2022-00051990-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 07, 2023

12/08/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00051990-CU-BC-CTL FUSION LLF LLC VS STATEHOUSE HOLDINGS INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Fusion LLF LLC's motions to compel Defendant StateHouse Holdings Inc. to provide initial responses to (1) form interrogatories – set one, (2) special interrogatories – set one, and (3) requests for production – set one are DENIED AS MOOT. Fusion's request for sanctions is DENIED.

Initial Responses Concurrently with its opposition, StateHouse served responses to the discovery at issue. When a party moves to compel initial responses, and those initial responses are served in advance of the hearing, courts have several options: 'The trial court might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories [or requests]; it might deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions; it might treat the motion as one under section 2030.300 [or 2031.310–2031.320] and either determine that further answers are required, or order the propounding party to 'meet and confer' and file a separate statement; or it might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding party to file a motion under section 2030.300 [or 2031.310–2031.320].' (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.) Fusion argues that StateHouse's responses improperly include objections. It also argues that StateHouse has yet to produce any documents. As such, Fusion argues the motions are not moot and should be granted. However, along with its responses, StateHouse filed a motion for relief from waiver of its objections to be heard later. The viability of objections stated in StateHouse's initial responses likely depends, in large part, upon the outcome of that motion. Given these circumstances, Fusion's motion is, therefore, denied as moot, without prejudice to Fusion filing motions to compel further responses and a motion to compel compliance.

Sanctions Service of initial responses in advance of a hearing does not moot a request for sanctions. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).) However, sanctions shall not be imposed if the opposing party acted with substantial justification or if sanctions would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3034566  50 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  FUSION LLF LLC VS STATEHOUSE HOLDINGS INC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00051990-CU-BC-CTL (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Here, Fusion served the discovery requests by mail at the outset of this case, shortly after the 10-day hold expired and before StateHouse's deadline to appear. There is evidence that StateHouse did not learn about the discovery requests until Fusion's counsel emailed them to StateHouse's counsel after the deadline to respond had already lapsed. At that point, the parties had been discussing settlement and began exploring a potential mediation and informal exchange of information. StateHouse thereafter served its responses a few weeks after the matter failed to settle at mediation. Under the circumstances, the court finds substantial justification and declines to award sanctions.

Conclusion The motions to compel are denied as moot.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3034566  50