Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 20STCV11677, Date: 2024-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 20STCV11677, Date: 2024-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses/ or Alternatively to Compel Further Response [sic] to Special Interrogatories, Set One Without Objections

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s alternative motion to compel further responses as to Special Interrogatory Numbers 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 37, 41, 42, 43, 45, 48, and 52. Defendant Millner must provide code-compliant verified further responses, without further objections, to these interrogatories within 30 days of the Court’s order.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as to Special Interrogatory Numbers 29, 35, 39 and 53.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $2,137.50, comprised of 3.5 hours preparing the motion and reply and 1.0 hour appearing at the hearing on the motion, for a total of 4.5 hours, multiplied by the reduced hourly rate of $475.00. Defendant Millner and her counsel of record must pay said monetary sanctions to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days of the Court’s order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s rulings within five calendar days of this order.

This is a quiet title action. On March 20, 2020, plaintiff Nobia Joyce (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Shawn M. Millner, the Shawn Marie Millner Revocable Trust (collectively, Millner), Laurence Todd (Todd) (Millner and Todd may be collectively referred to as Defendants), and Does 1 through 20, alleging causes of action for quiet title, partition, declaratory relief, and ejectment and damages.

On November 29, 2022, Defendants filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff, Stephen R. Golden, Stephen R. Golden & Associates, P.C., and Does 1 through 20. On February 2, 2024, Defendants filed the operative Second Amended Cross-Complaint (SACC) against the same parties, alleging causes of action for breach of the July 5, 2018 Settlement Agreement, breach of the covenant of good faith of the July 5, 2018 Settlement Agreement, fraud (No. 1), breach of the August 2018 Co-signor agreement, breach of the covenant of good faith breach [sic] of the August 2018 Co-tenant [sic] agreement, fraud (No. 2), assault, battery, false imprisonment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander of title, fraud (No. 3), invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, comparative indemnity, apportionment of fault, breach of the May 2023 Settlement Agreement, and breach of the covenant of good faith of the May 2023 Settlement Agreement. On August 27, 2024, the Court dismissed cross-defendants Stephen R. Golden and Stephen R. Golden & Associates, P.C., from the SACC without prejudice.

On August 28, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed the First and Second Causes of Action for quiet title and partition as to Defendant Todd without prejudice.

On October 10, 2024, Plaintiff moved to compel responses or alternatively to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, without objections. On November 15, 2024, Millner’s counsel submitted a declaration in opposition to the motion to compel. On November 18, 2024, Plaintiff submitted exhibits in support of the motion. On November 19, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a declaration to continue the hearing on the motion based upon the exhibits being filed after the motion and based upon Millner’s late opposition. On November 20, 2024, Plaintiff replied to the declaration in opposition to the motion.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), provides that on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230¿is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d), further provides that “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Millner’s counsel’s declaration submitted in opposition to the motion is untimely. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Additionally, Plaintiff’s exhibits were untimely served as well. Nevertheless, the Court exercises its discretion to still consider Millner’s opposition and Plaintiff’s exhibits, but admonishes the parties to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure going forward. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subd. (d); Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1197, 1202.)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer before bringing this motion sufficient. (Barnes Decl., ¶¶ 5-10.)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, from Millner. Plaintiff indicates having initially served Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Millner on June 7, 2021, and that Millner eventually served responses on July 23, 2024, but virtually all of them contained objections. Plaintiff indicates the parties eventually attended an Informal Discovery Conference on August 27, 2024, in which Millner agreed to provide supplemental responses by September 26, 2024. Plaintiff states that Millner provided unsigned and unverified responses on September 25, 2024. Plaintiff contends she further attempted to meet and confer regarding the problems with the responses, but to no avail. Plaintiff contends further responses are needed for Plaintiff to prepare her defense against Millner’s cross-complaint. Plaintiff also contends that if Millner provides verifications for the responses at issue, Millner’s responses are still improper because they were evasive, incomplete, and contained numerous objections.

In opposition, Millner’s counsel states that verified responses were sent on September 25, 2024.

In reply, Plaintiff contends the statement from Millner’s counsel are inconsistent with the exhibits in the moving papers, and that there is no declaration from his legal assistant attesting that the responses served in September were verified. Plaintiff contends there is no credible evidence showing that Millner served verified responses on Plaintiff by the date set in the Court’s August 27, 2024 minute order. Plaintiff reiterates that the responses received on September 25, 2024, were unsigned and unverified.

The Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling further responses to some but not all of Millner’s supplemental responses.[1] The Court does find that Millner’s supplemental responses served on September 25, 2024, were unsigned and unverified, as Plaintiff presented a copy of the unsigned and unverified responses from Millner. (Exhibits ISO Motion to Compel (11/18/24), Ex. E.) Although Millner’s counsel presented signed and verified responses with his declaration filed on November 15, 2024, the fact that Plaintiff has those same responses but unsigned and without a verification persuades the Court that those are the responses that Millner served on September 25, 2024. (See Exhibits ISO Motion to Compel (11/18/24), Ex. E; Bowman Decl. (11/15/24), Ex. 1.) However, by virtue of filing and serving the declaration on November 15, 2024, Millner has now served signed and verified further responses, albeit untimely. (See Minute Order re FSC (8/27/24).) As such, the initial basis for Plaintiff’s motion is now moot.

However, Plaintiff anticipated that Millner might serve the signed and verified responses after Plaintiff filed this motion and alternatively requested that the Court compel further responses on the grounds that Millner’s supplemental responses are evasive, incomplete, and contain meritless objections. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s separate statement, the Court does not find Millner improperly asserted objections in her supplemental responses, as Millner merely referenced the objections asserted in the original responses. But, the Court does agree with Plaintiff that a number of Millner’s responses are incomplete and not fully responsive, namely Special Interrogatory Numbers 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 37, 41, 42, 43, 45, 48, and 52. These interrogatories request Millner to identify annual salary amounts and witnesses, provide the locations of such witnesses, or identify documents, dates, amounts of bills, and other details, but such information was not provided. For example, the supplemental responses to Numbers 9 and 10 request Millner’s annual salary. Defendant responded with an estimate above the average median income. Plaintiff is entitled to a direct and concise response and Defendant must make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information. Defendant’s response does not indicate such effort was made. With respect to Number 11, Defendant must identify documents reflecting her salary for the request years, not state Defendant’s deposition. As an additional example, Numbers 14, 15 and 48 request amounts of medical bills and the types, dates and number of treatments or consultations or counseling sessions. Defendant’s responses do not provide any of this information.

The Court also notes that the declaration from Millner’s counsel submitted in opposition to the motion does not address Plaintiff’s arguments regarding evasive and incomplete responses, which the Court construes as a tacit admission that Plaintiff’s arguments on those points are meritorious. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410; C. Opposing the Motion—and Rebutting the Opposition, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 9(I)-C, ¶ 9:105.10; see also Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215 [“Contentions are waived when a party fails to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority. [Citation]”].)

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s alternative motion to compel further responses as to Special Interrogatory Numbers 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 37, 41, 42, 43, 45, 48, and 52. Millner must provide code-compliant verified further responses, without further objections, to these interrogatories within 30 days of the Court’s order.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as to Special Interrogatory Numbers 29, 35, 39 and 53.

With respect to monetary sanctions, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request in the reduced amount of $2,137.50, comprised of 3.5 hours preparing the motion and reply and 1.0 hour appearing at the hearing on the motion, for a total of 4.5 hours, multiplied by the reduced hourly rate of $475.00. Millner and her counsel of record must pay said monetary sanctions to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days of the Court’s order.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as to Special Interrogatory Numbers 29, 35, 39 and 53.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s rulings within five calendar days of this order.

[1] To be clear, Millner’s supplemental responses are really further responses since they were provided in addition to the original requests and not in response to supplemental interrogatories. (See Minute Order re FSC (8/27/24); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.070; 5. [8:1023] Responding to Interrogatories:, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 8F-5.)