Judge Mark A. Young, Case 21SMCV01582 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 21SMCV01582, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01582 Hearing Date: February 3, 2023 Dept: M

CASE NAME: Simpkins, v. Siretskiy, et al.

CASE NO.: 21SMCV01582

MOTION: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

HEARING DATE: 1/26/2023

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.)

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 interrogatories. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Analysis

Plaintiff Simpkins (“MP”) filed three motions to compel further responses against Defendants. This motion specifically relates to Defendant Mikhail Siretskiy’s (“RP”) responses to form interrogatories, set one (“FIs”). On April 21, 2022, MP propounded three discovery requests (Requests to Admit, Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents) to RP. On August 4, 2022, RP served responses to the discovery, including responses to the FIs. Plaintiff contends these were non-responsive, evasive and/or incomplete.

The Court held an IDC on October 20, 2022, regarding the outstanding discovery. Counsel agreed to provide supplemental responses by October 31, 2022. On October 31, 2022, counsel for RPs informed MP that he could not provide further responses since his client did not respond to counsel. (Moore Decl., Ex. C.) The Court agrees that the cited interrogatories are evasive/incomplete.

Interrogatory 15.1

“Identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings and for each: (a) state all facts upon which you base the denial or special or affirmative defense; (b) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (c) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.”

RP responds that he: “asserted several affirmative defenses in its answer to Propounding Party’s complaint simply to preserve the right to assert them later and thus as Responding Party has not yet had an opportunity to conduct its own discovery, this interrogatory is premature. Discovery continues and Responding Party reserves the right to supplement or amend this response to incorporate newly discovered facts.” This response provided no facts supporting any denials or affirmative defenses, and identified no persons, documents or other information requested. Thus, a further response is required.

Interrogatory 17.1 (re: Request for Admission 21, 23, 36)

“Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the number of the request; (b) state all facts upon which you base your response; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.”

RFA no. 21 requests that RP “ADMIT that SIRETSKIY ORG used at least a portion of the PAYMENT for SIRETSKIY ORG’s sole benefit.” RP provided the following response to section (b): “TSO did not use Propounding Party’s investment funds that Propounding Party deposited with TSO on or about November 22, 2017 in the amount of $460,000 for its sole benefit.” The Court agrees that this response only reiterates the denial without citing supporting facts for the denial. Thus, a further response is required. Further, as to subsection (d): “As of the date of this response, Responding Party has not located any documents or communications that specifically discuss the facts set forth above.” This does not provide specificity as to whether RP conducted a reasonable inquiry and search regarding such documents. (See CCP §§ 2030.220(c); 2031.230; 2033.220(c).) For these reasons, further responses are required.

RFA no. 23 requests that RP “ADMIT that YOU used at least a portion of the PAYMENT for YOUR (“YOUR” means Defendant Mikhail Siretskiy’s) sole benefit.” RP reiterates his denial: “(b) Responding Party did not use Propounding Party’s investment funds that Propounding Party deposited with TSO on or about November22, 2017 in the amount of $460,000 for his sole benefit.” As to subpart (d): “As of the date of this response, Responding Party has not located any documents or communications that specifically discuss the facts set forth above.” These answers are also deficient for the same reasons. They proffer no facts or statement of compliance. Further responses are required.

RFA no. 36 requests that RP “ADMIT that PLAINTIFF did not fail to take reasonable steps to minimize or prevent the damages PLAINTIFF claims to have suffered.” As to subsection (b), RP responded: “(b) Propounding Party did not timely file all of her claims against Responding Party.” This response is a non-sequitur. A failure to timely file claims does not relate to the minimization of damages. Further responses are required. As to subsection (c), RP provides that “Propounding Party and Responding Party, available through their respective counsel of record.” This response does not state the addresses and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of the cited facts. As to subsection (d), RP provides that “As of the date of this response, Responding party has not located any documents or communications that specifically discuss the facts set forth above.” This response is evasive for the same reasons as the other subsection (d) responses. Thus, further responses are required.

RFA no. 39 requests that RP “ADMIT that PLAINTIFF did not agree at any time to settle any claims she has against CANTERSKIOSKONE.” As to subsection (d), RP responds that he “will produce documents responsive to this request. Discovery continues and Responding Party reserves the right to supplement or amend this response to incorporate newly discovered facts.”

This response commits to producing documents but fails to identify any documents or related information. A further response is required.

RFA no. 59 requests that RP “ADMIT that SIRETSKIY REAL ESTATE remains in breach of the NOTE as of February 24, 2022.” As to subsection (d), RP responds that it “will produce documents responsive to this request. Discovery continues and Responding Party reserves the right to supplement or amend this response to incorporate newly discovered facts.” This is non-responsive for the same reasons discussed as to the other subsection (d) responses.

Accordingly, MP’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED. 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).)

MP requests $1,722.50 in sanctions. The Court finds this request excessive, given that this motion was unopposed and has substantial overlap with the other pending/granted discovery motions. Accordingly, MP’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reasonable sum of $882.25 against RP Mikhail Siretskiy only.