Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2018-00064842-CU-BT-CTL, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPT.:
EVENT DATE:
EVENT TIME:
HALL OF JUSTICE
TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 04, 2024
01/05/2024 09:00:00 AM C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner
CASE NO.:
CASE CATEGORY:
EVENT TYPE:
CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:
Civil - Unlimited Business Tort Discovery Hearing 37-2018-00064842-CU-BT-CTL LANCAIR CORP VS R CONSULTING & SALES INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:
Plaintiff Lancair Corporation's motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED.
Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to requests for production is GRANTED.
Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Cross-Complainant Centerline Holdings to special interrogatories ('SI') nos. 9, 13, 25-27, 30-31, and 33-34, and to requests for production ('RFP') nos.
10-13.
As to SI nos. 9 and 13, it appears the parties agree that Cross-Complainant's supplemental responses are insufficient and that further supplemental responses are warranted. However, it does not appear Cross-Complainant has in fact served such further supplemental responses. As such, Cross-Complainant will be compelled to further supplement its responses to these interrogatories.
As to SI nos. 25-27, 30-31, and 33-34, and RFP nos. 10-13, the court agrees with Plaintiff that these interrogatories and requests seek relevant information and documents, and are not overbroad or ambiguous. The interrogatories are limited in time to the present, the RFPs are limited in time to 2021 to the present, and all of the discovery requests are relevant to Plaintiff's defense of Cross-Complainant claims regarding present and ongoing damages arising from Plaintiff's allegedly improper unrecorded lien, and Cross-Complainant has alleged that it is partially controlled by Defendant Lance Ricotta.
Plaintiff has also alleged that Defendants Lance Ricotta and Raquel Michel are alter egos of Defendant R Consulting & Sales, Inc. and Cross-Complainant. Moreover, the court agrees that even if the information and documents sought trigger a degree of privacy privilege-which is dubious at best-such privilege was not raised as an objection in Defendant's responses and was likely waived when Defendant Michel provided the same information at her deposition and produced some of the requested documents.
Accordingly, the motion is granted as to SI nos. 25-27, 30-31, and 33-34, and RFP nos. 10-13.
Under the circumstances, sanctions are also warranted. Defendant's objections regarding relevance and overbreadth were unreasonable, as was its belated privacy objection, and therefore its decision to withhold discoverable information and documents was without substantial justification. Plaintiff requests a sanction of $3,312 for the special interrogatories motion based on 9.6 hours of attorney work at a rate of $345/hour, and $2,415 for the request for production motion, based on 7 hours of attorney work at a rate of $345/hour. Although the court agrees that the rate is reasonable, the hours expended are not, Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
3050141 31 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: LANCAIR CORP VS R CONSULTING & SALES INC [IMAGED] 37-2018-00064842-CU-BT-CTL and given the overlap in arguments regarding relevance and privacy, and the equivalent meet and confer record, the court also finds these requests largely duplicative. As such, the court will limit the amount of attorney work to 8 hours for both motions, bringing the total sanction to $2,760, which will also be joint and several against both Cross-Complainant Centerline Holdings and its counsel of record.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motions are granted. Cross-Complainant is ordered to provide verified code-compliant further responses to SI nos. 9, 13, 25-27, 30-31, and 33-34, and to RFP nos. 10-13, to produce the responsive documents, and to pay sanctions totaling $2,760, no later than January 26, 2024.
The minute order is the order of the court.
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
3050141 31