Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV01525, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22SMCV01525 Hearing Date: May 3, 2024 Dept: M
CASE NO.: 22SMCV01525
MOTION: Motion
to Compel Further Responses
HEARING DATE: 5/3/2024
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 inspection 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
Defendants Rafael Gabai and Bundy
Wellesley LLC moves to compel Plaintiff Mahnaz Barsiasa to provide further
responses to Defendants’ SI, nos. 1-3 , 5, 9 -14, 17-34, 40, 43 , 46, 49, 52-53
, 55-56, 58-59, 61 , 64-65, 67-68, and 70 without objection.
Plaintiff submits further/amended
responses in opposition to this motion. Upon review, Plaintiff submitted
further/amended responses only as to SI nos. 5, 9 -14, 46, 49, 52-53, 55-56,
58-59, 61, 64-65, 67-68, and 70. As to those additional responses, the motion
is moot. However, as to nos. 1-3, 17-34, 40, 43, and 68, the motion is not
moot. The Court notes that no reply
brief was filed, so it is uncertain whether these responses are still in
dispute.
Absent an agreement between
counsel, the Court would find that further responses are required for the
remaining SIs. These interrogatories sought basic information regarding the
subject incident(s) underlying this action, to wit, the habitability claims
asserted by Plaintiffs. Further, the response to SI no. 68 is evasive or
incomplete, as it does not specifically cite any document beyond an unspecified
“Letter to landlord.” Further responses are therefore warranted as to nos. 1-3,
17-34, 40, 43 and 68.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
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).) Here,
sanctions are mandatory. Plaintiff does not provide substantial justification
for their initial responses. Thus, Plaintiff’s conduct necessitated this
motion.
Defendants request sanctions of $3,001.65,
comprising fees and costs associated with the motion. Counsel claims 10 hours
of attorney time, including 2 hours preparing the meet and confer letter, attending
a conference call, preparing the joint statement, and attending the IDC; 6
hours for research and drafting the moving papers; and an anticipated 4 hours for
the reply brief and for appearing at the hearing on this motion. (Samsonova
Decl.¶ 10.) Counsel charges $245.00 per hour. Defendants claim costs of $61.65.
Considering counsels’ declaration and the motion record, the Court finds this
request to be somewhat excessive. The Court finds that a reasonable fee in this
instance would be $1,715.00, plus costs of $61.65.
Accordingly, sanctions are GRANTED
in the reduced total amount of 1,776.65 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s
counsel of record, Hamid Soleimanian, Esq., jointly and severally. Sanctions
are to be paid to Defendants’ counsel in 30 days.
In addition, further responses are
ordered within 10 days.