Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 21STCV23431, Date: 2024-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 21STCV23431, Date: 2024-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23431 Hearing Date: March 26, 2024 Dept: 30

ANDREW RAFAT BOLOUS vs RODRIGO RODEREX RODRIGUEZ III, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED. Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s counsel Farahi is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through its counsel, in the amount of $960 within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Legal Standard

The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court may make this determination pursuant to¿a motion for protective order by a party or other affected person. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc.,¿§ 2017.020(a).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each¿issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc.,¿§ 2016.040.)¿¿

The court shall restrict the frequency or extent of use of a discovery method provided in if it determines either of the following:¿

3. The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.¿

4. The selected method of discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.¿

¿(Code Civ. Proc.,¿§ 2019.030(a).)¿

Code of Civil Procedure section¿2030.090(a) provides that a party upon whom interrogatories have been propounded may “promptly” move for a protective order. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.030 limits the number of interrogatories that can be propounded to 35. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.040 permits a party to propound more than 35 special interrogatories with a declaration of necessity. It states: Any party who attaches a declaration of necessity may propound a greater number of specially prepared interrogatories to another party if this greater number is warranted because of any of the following:

(1) The complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case.

(2) The financial burden on a party entailed in conducting the discovery by oral deposition.

(3) The expedience of using this method of discovery to provide to the responding party the opportunity to conduct an inquiry, investigation, or search of files or records to supply the information sought.

(CCP § 2030.040(a).)

In addition, if a responding party seeks a protective order on the grounds that interrogatories are unwarranted, the propounding party has the burden to justify more than 35 requests. (CCP § 2030.040(b).)

Discussion

Defendant requests that this Court issue a protective order precluding Defendant from responding to set five of Plaintiff’s special interrogatories, which contain 62 special interrogatories. Plaintiff has previously propounded, and Defendant has responded to, 79 special interrogatories in his previous sets. Thus, in total Plaintiff has propounded 141 special interrogatories. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to substantiate why this excessive number of special interrogatories is warranted due to the (1) complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in this case, (2) his financial burden limiting his ability to depose Defendant’s employees, or (3) the expedience of using this method of discovery.

Plaintiff has not established that this matter concerning an accident involving the unloading of a car lift is so complex as to justify more than 35 special interrogatories. Moreover, Plaintiff did not go through the propounded special interrogatories to show why each one, or categories of them, are necessary. Plaintiff’s opposition falls short of meeting the burden to justify propounding special interrogatories in excess of 35.

As such, Defendant’s motion for a protective order is granted.

Code of Civil Procedure 2030.090(d) mandates the imposition of sanctions in favor of the party who prevails on this motion unless the opposing party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances render imposition of sanctions unjust.

Here, the court finds sanctions warranted, as Plaintiff has not acted with substantial justification. However, the amount requested by Defendant is not reasonable. Thus, the Court imposes sanctions in the amount of $960 ($450 per hour x 2 hours, plus $60 filing fee).

Sanctions are sought against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record. However, Defendant does not describe any conduct by Plaintiff warranting sanctions against Plaintiff directly; rather, it appears Plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct in serving the subject special interrogatories necessitated the motion. Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Justin Farahi only. Plaintiff’s counsel Farahi is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through its counsel, in the amount of $960 within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied, as the motion is granted.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED. Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s counsel Farahi is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through its counsel, in the amount of $960 within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.