Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV01525, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23SMCV01525 Hearing Date: May 9, 2024 Dept: M
CASE NO.: 23SMCV01525
MOTION: Motion to Compel Further Responses
HEARING DATE: 5/9/2024
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 or specially prepared interrogatories 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 move to
compel Plaintiff Mahnaz Barsiasa to provide further responses to Form
Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 2.2, 6.4(d), 6.5(e), 6.7, 12.1, 12.2,
12.3, 12.4 (d), 50.1, 50.2, and 50.5.
In opposition, Plaintiff submits
further verified responses to nos. 2.1, 6.7, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4 (d), 50.1,
50.2, and 50.5. (Soleimanian Decl., Ex. A.) The Court notes that at an informal
discovery conference (IDC), defense counsel agreed not to seek further
discovery responses to Form Interrogatories 6.4(d) and 6.5(d).
Critically, Plaintiff’s
supplemental responses failed to address FROG no. 2.2, which merely asks for
his birthday and place of birth. The current response only provides his place
of birth as Tehran, Iran, without his birthday. To the extent that Defendants
still wish to seek further responses, the motion would be granted as to no. 2.2.
Further responses are required within 5 days.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. A further response is ordered within 10 days.
Defendants request sanctions in the amount
of $1,776.65 against
Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Hamid Soleimanian of
Soleimanian Law. 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).)
Since Plaintiff provided mostly compliant supplemental responses, the Court
finds circumstances that would make the imposition of full sanctions unjust.
Accordingly, sanctions are GRANTED in the total reduced amount of $1,100.00.
Sanctions are to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within 30 days.