Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 20STCV45866, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV45866    Hearing Date: October 3, 2024    Dept: 61

ENVIRONET INC., et al. vs LOS ANGELES COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION, et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiffs Ryan Koda and Environet, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production from Defendant Los Angeles County Fair Association is GRANTED. Further responses are ordered served within 20 days of this Order. Sanctions are awarded against Defendant in the amount of $2,000.00, payable within 30 days.

Plaintiffs to give notice.

DISCUSSION

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010(a).) If a propounding party is not satisfied with the response served by a responding party, the former may move the court to compel further interrogatory responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) The propounding party must demonstrate that the responses were incomplete, inadequate or evasive, or that the responding party asserted objections that are either without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a)(1)–(3); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 403.)

Plaintiffs Ryan Koda and Environet, Inc. (Plaintiffs) move to compel further responses to Requests for Production, Set Two, No. 1–17, on the grounds that Defendant Los Angeles County Fair Association (Defendant) has responded only with boilerplate objections. (Motion 6.) And while it has produced documents following meet-and-confer efforts by Plaintiffs’ counsel, Defendant has not amended its responses or indicated to which request the documents correspond, as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280, subd. (a). (Motion at pp. 6–7.)

Good cause supports the requests here, which relate to the engine at issue in this litigation and the maintenance for the same. (Tarassoly Decl. Exh. A.) Defendant has presented no argument or opposition to support the objections offered to the requests. (Tarassoly Decl. Exh. C.) Defendant must therefore provide a further response without these objections and stating which documents are responsive to which request pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280.

The motion to compel further is GRANTED.

II. SANCTIONS

Statute provides that the court shall impose sanctions upon a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or requests for admission, absent substantial justification otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300, subd. (d); 2031.310, subd. (h); 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff seeks $5,500 in sanctions, representing eight hours of attorney work on this motion at $500 per hour, plus an additional three hours of attorney work at the same rate to prepare an ex parte application to expedite hearing on this motion. (Tarassoly Decl. ¶¶ 12–13.) No such ex parte application is on file with the court, and the complexity of the issues warrant a reduction of attorney hours. 

Thus, sanctions are awarded against Defendant in the amount of $2,000.00.