Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 20SMCV00406, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20SMCV00406 Hearing Date: December 9, 2022 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Rosamond Ranch LP, et al., v. South La Cienega Holdings LLC, et al.
CASE NO.: 20SMCV00406
MOTION: Motion to Compel Further Responses
HEARING DATE: 12/9/2022
BACKGROUND
On September 22, 2022, the court held an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) with the parties. Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants, via counsel Neil Evans, agreed to provide supplemental responses to discovery demanded by Defendant/Cross-Complainant South La Cienega Holdings, LLC by October 24, 2022, as outlined in defendant's IDC Statement. The Court further ordered that counsel for defendants, Stacy Knox, would provide a “detailed notice of all outstanding supplemental discovery responses owed to defendant, due by 10/24/22.”
Legal Standard
In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad. “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP § 2017.010; see Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301.)
Form and Special Interrogatories
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220(a) requires that “[e]ach answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” Pursuant to section 2030.300, a party may move to compel further responses to a form interrogatory if the other party’s answer is “evasive or incomplete.” The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the form and special interrogatories. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)
Production of Documents
If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (CCP § 2031.300(b); see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403-404.) However, when responses are served, the proper motion is a motion to compel further responses, which is governed by Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.300 and 2031.310. A motion to compel further responses must set forth specific facts showing “good cause” justifying the discovery sought by the demand and must be accompanied by a declaration showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues outside of court. (CCP §§ 2016.040, 2031.310(b)(2).)
A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) A motion for order compelling further responses “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).) Absent a claim of privilege or attorney work product, the moving party meets its burden of showing good cause by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) If the moving party has shown good cause for the RPDs, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Ibid.)
Requests for Admissions
On receipt of a response to requests for admission the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an RFA is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2033.290(a)(2).)
Analysis
Form Interrogatories against Sarra
Defendants include a separate statement in support of a motion to compel Sarra to further respond to Form Interrogatories, set one (no. 17.1). Defendants inadvertently omitted the Notice of Motion, and instead mistakenly attached the corresponding separate statement twice. Defendants attach a proof of service for the motion, served on November 28, 2022, nine court days prior to the instant hearing. Therefore, this motion to compel further was not timely filed or served. Accordingly, Defendants’ form interrogatory motion against Sarra is DENIED.
Remainder of Discovery Motions
Defendant/Cross-Complainant South La Cienega Holdings, LLC moves to compel further supplemental responses as to: 1) Special Interrogatories, Set One from Cross-Defendant Rosamond Ranch; 2) Requests for Admissions, Set One from Rosamond Ranch; 3) Requests for Production, Set One to Rosamond Ranch; and 4) Requests for Production, Set One from Cross-Defendant Neri Sarra.
Critically, on September 22, 2022, the Court held an IDC. Plaintiffs, via counsel Neil Evans, agreed to provide supplemental responses to discovery demanded by defendant South La Cienega Holdings, LLC by October 24, 2022, as outlined in defendant's IDC Statement. The Court further ordered that counsel for defendant Stacy Knox would provide “detailed notice of all outstanding supplemental discovery responses owed to defendant, due by 10/24/22.” Defendant’s IDC statement identified the subject responses, all of which Evans agreed to supplement. Defendants provided the notice by October 26, 2022, and it was not a prerequisite to the filing of these motions to compel further. Considering the agreement between counsel to provide supplemental responses at IDC, the Court will require such supplemental responses.
Plaintiffs claim that they did provide supplemental responses on October 24, 2022. (Evans Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. C.) Plaintiffs provide proof of service of different supplemental responses, but do not provide the substance of the responses, or verification of the responses. Thus, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiffs properly supplemented any of the responses as ordered. Moreover, Defendants provide that in the October 24, 2022, production, Plaintiffs did not supplement any of the responses identified by the IDC statement and agreed upon by Plaintiffs. (Knox Decl., ¶ 10.)
Defendants have demonstrated that Plaintiffs failed to provide further responses as required by the parties’ IDC agreement. The Court GRANTS the motions to compel further, except as to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, set one, against Sarra. Further responses are due within 10 days.
Sanctions
Sanctions are mandatory. The Court must sanction any party that unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response, “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.” (See, e.g., CCP, § 2030.300(d).)
Cross-Complainants/Defendants request sanctions in the amount of $17,850 against Rosamond, Sarra, and counsel of record. Counsel claims 26 hours in tasks related to these discovery issues at a billable rate of $425 per hour. Counsel anticipated an additional 16 hours on tasks related to the motions to compel, including hearings, reply briefs, and related tasks.
In a supplemental opposition, counsel for Plaintiffs assert that counsel and Sarra should not be sanctioned. Cross-Defendant Neri Sarra left the employ of Rosamond Ranch, LP and a related entity, Calitex, LLC and essentially retired two years ago, and moved across the country to North Chesterfield, Virginia, where she currently lives. (Supp. Evans Decl., ¶ 8.) As such, Sarra has no access to the information or records of Rosamond Ranch, L.P. or Calitex, LLC. which are domiciled in Beverly Hills, California. (If.) The Court agrees that sanctions would be unjust against Sarra, individually, under such facts.
Counsel also provides that the decisions as to what information or documents to provide in discovery on October 24, 2022, were made exclusively by the managing partner of Rosamond Ranch, LP, Mr. Elias Shokrian. (Supp. Evans Decl., ¶ 7.) However, Mr. Evans is admitting that he followed his clients’ instruction to not follow a court order, and his prior agreement, and not comply with discovery obligations. As such, counsel admits he engaged in an abuse of the discovery process and therefore should also be liable for sanctions.
In light of the totality of the record, the Court finds that a reasonable sanction here would be $10,000, inclusive of costs, against Rosamond. The Court also believes that counsel, Mr. Evans should be jointly and severally liable for a portion of these sanctions. The Court is willing to apportion liability because even though Mr. Evans abandoned his role as the attorney of record and followed Mr. Shokrian’s instructions, he had been put in an untenable position and did shortly thereafter move to be relieved of counsel of record. Thus, the Court shall hold Mr. Evans jointly liable for only $2,500 in sanctions.
Sanctions are payable within 30 days.