Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV01402, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22SMCV01402 Hearing Date: April 27, 2023 Dept: M
CASE NO.: 22SMCV01402
MOTION: Motion
to Compel Further Responses
HEARING DATE: 4/27/2023
BACKGROUND
This is a declaratory relief action based on a purported
contract between Plaintiff and Defendant for financial support. Plaintiff is Joseph Magna, who appears
herein through his attorney-in-fact, Mark Magna (Plaintiff). Plaintiff is the
father of Mark Magna and is the father of Amora Magna, Defendant herein.
Defendant claims that she is entitled to more than $120,000 per year for her
living expenses, including her home, home maintenance, home appliance repairs
and improvements, health insurance premiums and deductibles, car payments and
car repairs. Defendant claims an implied contract exists based on a
longstanding pattern of “gifting” from Joseph Magna to Amora Magna and her
children with consistent financial support. Defendant claims that this contract
is supported by consideration and on a promissory estoppel theory. Plaintiff
denies that there is any legal obligation to pay any sums. Plaintiff seeks a
judicial determination and declaration that, as between Plaintiff and
Defendant, Plaintiff has no responsibility to pay to Defendant any amounts,
presently or in the future.
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 CCP 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.” (Coy
v. Superior Court (1962)
58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)
A motion to compel further
production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the
discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.310(b)(1).) It is not necessary for the motion to show that the material
sought will be admissible in evidence. “Good cause” may be found to justify
discovery where specific facts show that the discovery is necessary for
effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. (See Associated
Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 586-588; see also Calcor
Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224 [factual
evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations].)
A motion to compel further responses be brought based on
responses to requests for admission (“RFA”) that: (1) provide evasive or
incomplete answers; or (2) make unmeritorious or overly-generalized objections.
(CCP, § 2033.290(a); see Holguin v. Superior Court (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d
812, 821 [a motion to compel further responses cannot compel the admission of
matters already denied].)
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, supra, 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221.)
Analysis
Plaintiff moves for an order to
compel further responses from Defendant as to i) form interrogatories –
general, set one (“FROGs); ii) special interrogatories, set one (“SROGs”); iii)
requests for production of documents, set one (“RPDs”); and iv) RFAs, set one.
Plaintiff propounded his discovery
requests, including RFAs, RPDs, SROGs, and FROGs, upon Defendant on December 8,
2022. Responses were due on January 9, 2023. (Overing Decl., ¶ 3.) Following a
one-month extension, Defendant responded to the various discovery requests by
serving boilerplate objections on January 31, 2023. (Overing Decls., ¶ 4.) On
February 3, 2023, Plaintiff met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel. (Id., ¶
5.) Further, Plaintiff attempted to schedule an IDC with Defendant per the
Court’s standing orders regarding IDCs. (Id., ¶6.) The Court specially set these motions due to
Defendant’s failure to attend the IDC.
Defendant responded to the above
discovery with only objections. Defendant has failed to oppose, and therefore
failed to justify any objection
or failure fully to answer.¿(Coy, supra, 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221.)
Accordingly, the motions to compel further responses are GRANTED as to the
RFAs, SROGs, RPDs and FROGs. Further
responses are due within 10 days without any additional objections.
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).)
Plaintiff notices the following sanctions:
i) $2954.16 as to the FROGs; ii) $3714.16 as to the SROGs; iii) $3404.16
as to the RPDs; and iv) $4889.16
as to the RFAs. This is based on counsels’ time spent on creating the
underlying discovery requests, meeting and conferring, writing the instant
motions, and anticipated replies/attending the hearings on the motions. (See
Overing Decls., Wilde Decls., Morales Decls., and Lee Decls.) The Court does
not find that sanctions are proper for creating the underlying discovery requests
or meeting and conferring. Further, given the relative simplicity of the
motions, the lack of opposition, and the overlap between the motions, the Court
finds that the requested sanctions are duplicative and excessive. Therefore,
the Court is inclined to grant sanctions in the reduced, total amount of $3,525.00,
inclusive of costs.
Accordingly, the requests for
sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $3,525.00 against Defendant Amora
Magna. Sanctions are to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within 30 days.
As to the OSC re sanctions for
Defendant’s failure to appear at the IDC, the Court intends to discharge that
OSC in light of the discovery sanctions issued pursuant to Plaintiff’s
motions. As to Defendant’s excuses for
her failure to appear, the Court does not find them compelling. The hearing was heard remotely via Zoom so
any childcare or medical concerns due to a foot injury would be unavailing.
Moreover, Plaintiff has presented evidence that Defendant has been
uncooperative with respect to both discovery responses and scheduling concerns.
At the hearing, the Court would also
like to address Defendant’s fee waiver.
In her fee waiver, Defendants states that she receives IHSS benefits. In Michael Overling’s April 25, 2023, declaration,
Mr. Overling indicates that Defendant receives $15,000/month in income and
recently went on a long ski vacation. Defendant
may respond to those allegations at the hearing.