Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 21SMCV00865, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV00865    Hearing Date: March 8, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Cohen, v. Talasazan, et al.

CASE NO.:                21SMCV00865

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

HEARING DATE:   3/8/2024

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.) “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [Citation] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

A motion to compel further responses to form (FI) or specially prepared interrogatories (SI) may be brought if the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (CCP § 2030.300(a).)   

            A motion to compel further must be noticed within 45 days of the service of a response, or any supplemental response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing. Otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel further response to the demand. (See, e.g., CCP § 2031.310(c).)

            Motions to compel further responses must always be accompanied by a meet-and confer-declaration (per CCP § 2016.040) demonstrating a “reasonable and good faith attempt an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (CCP §§ 2030.300(b), 2031.310(b)(2), 2033.290(b).) They must also be accompanied by a separate statement containing the requests and the responses, verbatim, as well as reasons why a further response is warranted. (CRC, rule 3.1345(a).) The separate statement must also be complete in itself; no extrinsic materials may be incorporated by reference. (CRC rule 3.1345(c).)

            If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the¿burden is on the responding party¿to justify any objection or failure fully to answer.¿(Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also¿Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Analysis

Judgment Creditor Eliyahu Cohen moves for an order compelling Judgment Debtor Eymun Talasazan to provide further verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s post-judgment Special Interrogatories, Set One (SROGs), Numbers 27, 34, 36, and 37. Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $6,277.66 against Defendant and his counsel of record, John Sullivan.

SROG nos. 27, 34, 36, and 37 pertain to Talasazan’s contact information. Cohen explains that Talasazan has claimed his parents as creditors, but refused to provide their contact information, citing privacy concerns. The Court overruled his objections and ordered him to provide their contact information, including their address. (4/21/23 Minute Order.) Talasazan still refuses to answer the question. The only address Talasazan provided for them is a wrong address, namely, address to the middle of the intersection between Doheny Dr. and Santa Monica Blvd. in West Hollywood. (Moghadam Decl., ¶¶ 13-16.) Talasazan does not oppose the motion. Furthermore, Talasazan’s counsel disclaims responsibility, stating that he has been unable to obtain an address from Talasazan. Per the prior court order, Talasazan is required to provide a valid mailing address. Given the unrebutted evidence that the proffered address is invalid, Talasazan’s court-ordered responses are evasive and incomplete. Thus, Talasazan must provide a further response to the above SROGs.

Sanctions are mandatory against Talasazan. 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).) JD does not justify his evasive response.

Plaintiff claims $6,027.66 in reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in connection with these proceedings. (Moghadam Decl. ¶¶ 17-18.) This represents 2.4 hours of reviewing Defendant’s supplemental and further supplemental responses, and meeting and conferring with defense counsel about those responses; 5.5 hours preparing the instant motion; an estimated 3.0 hours reviewing the opposition and preparing a reply; and an estimated 1.0 hour preparing for and arguing at the hearing, all at a rate of $500 per hour. (Moghadam Decl. ¶¶ 19-22.) The Court finds the hours expended somewhat inflated. Further, there was no opposition, and therefore no need to reply. Using the lodestar method, the Court finds that a reasonable fee in this matter would be $3,250.00, plus costs. Therefore, sanctions are imposed against Talasazan in the amount of $3,310.00 in favor of Plaintiff.  Sanctions are payable within 30 days.

Further responses are ordered within 10 days.