Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV05079, Date: 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05079    Hearing Date: January 27, 2023    Dept: 55

SHETTY v. BLOCK                                                             22STCV05079

Hearing Date:  1/27/23,  Dept. 55

#5:  

MOTION TO COMPEL ADINA ZAHARESCU TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST MS. ZAHARESCU AND HER COUNSEL.

MOTION TO COMPEL ADINA ZAHARESCU AND NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY TO 1) PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; (2) COMPLIANCE WITH REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND (3) FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR COUNSEL

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

MP:  Defendant TOM BLOCK.

RP:  

Summary

On 2/9/22, Plaintiff NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY et al filed a Complaint.

On 9/22/22, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging:

The EMREK defendants purported to retain a security interest in Plaintiffs’ home, when the security interest and loan documents that Plaintiff ADINA ZAHARESCU signed with NEW HAVEN FINANCIAL, INC., was to finance the acquisition of a Chatsworth Property.

The security interest was based on forged changes in the Note and Deed of Trust that she executed on December 29, 2005, as part of the loan documents for the Chatsworth Property transaction, which never closed with NEW HAVEN, but instead with another lender.  On or about July 7, 2008, timely, within three years from the date of the original transaction, Plaintiffs sent a recission demand, pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act. Defendant THOMAS BLOCK  obtained an assignment of the altered and forged Deed of Trust from Defendant SUE EMREK, as trustee of the EMREK FAMILY TRUST, recorded on 7/7/11.  The Deed of Trust was rendered void by Plaintiff’s rescission, and the note was rendered unsecured.  Block has been foreclosing on plaintiffs’ home pursuant to the altered, forged Note and Deed of Trust, with a trustee’s sale date of February 22, 2022.

The causes of action are:

1. WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE;

2. QUIET TITLE;

3. CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENT;

4. DECLARATORY RELIEF;

5. VIOLATION OF REGULATION Z OF THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT;

6. FRAUD;

7. ACCOUNTING;

8. VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT.

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order compelling further responses to form interrogatories and document requests, and imposing $1,860 plus $1,860 in sanctions against co-plaintiffs ADINA ZAHARESCU and NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY and counsel, on grounds including the following:

·         On July 8, 2022, plaintiffs served objection-only responses to some of the discovery numbers, and some were unanswered.

·         Boilerplate objections were repeated:

“Objection; this request is vague and ambiguous, overbroad and unintelligible. Moreover, this request seeks documents that are equally available to the Propounding Party, or that which is otherwise private or privileged under law, including but not limited to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, or that which is not in the Responding Party’s possession, custody or control. It also seeks documents that are beyond the scope of this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence that would be admissible in this action. “Notwithstanding, discovery is ongoing and Responding Party reserves the right to supplement their response to this request as they discover responsive facts, information and documents.”

·         The responses were not verified.

·         Plaintiffs failed to produce any documents.

·         Plaintiffs ignored efforts to meet and confer.

Tentative Ruling

Both unopposed motions are granted, as prayed.

Plaintiffs are to provide responses within 30 days.

Sanctions in the amount of $1,860.00 are awarded to Defendant THOMAS BLOCK and against Plaintiff NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY and counsel Mainak D’Attaray, jointly and severally.

Sanctions in the amount of $3,720.00 are awarded to Defendant THOMAS BLOCK and against Plaintiff ADINA ZAHARESCU and counsel Mainak D’Attaray, jointly and severally.

Interrogatory responses must be (1) the information sought, (2) an exercise of a valid option to produce writings, or (3) an objection.  Hernandez v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 285, 293.  An interrogatory response must be as complete and straightforward as reasonably available information permits.  CCP §2030.220(a), (b).   A response must “represent the interrogated party's present best and complete answer.”  Fuss v. Sup. Ct. (1969) 273 Cal. App. 2d 807, 816.  If interrogatory responses lack specificity, then parties may move to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.300(a), providing for motions to compel, where parties deem that an answer is evasive, incomplete, or inadequate as to specification of documents.  Best Products, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 1181, 1190

Form interrogatories approved by the Judicial Council entail fundamentally routine discovery of witness contact information.  Puerto v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1250.

A document response must consist of:  1) an agreement to comply, stating whether the productions or inspection will be allowed “in whole or in part,” and that all documents or things in the possession, custody or control of the respondent, as to which no objection is made, will be included, by the date set for inspection (unless informally extended in writing, or the designated timing is subject to objection);   2) a representation of inability to comply, with a specification of any person believed or known to have possession of documents;  or, 3) objections and specification of withheld documents.  CCP §§2031.210(a), 2031.220, 2031.270, 2031.280(b).  

Where general boilerplate objections were made, courts have authority to compel further responses (but not to find a waiver of privilege objections). Best Products, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 1181, 1189.

“Even where a party deems a demand to be objectionable, he [she, or it] still must identify those items which fall into the category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.”  Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 901 n.3.

Generally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification or other injustice.  E.g.,  Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4^th 1542, 1557-58.  “ ‘[S]ubstantial justification” has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact.”  Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.