Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV09984, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV09984    Hearing Date: February 17, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 17, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(2) Motions to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Defendant My Management Co., Inc.

Responding Party: None

T/R:   DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY ARE GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF TO SERVE VERIFIED FUTHER RESPONSES TO THE SUBJECT DISCOVERY, WITHOUT OBJECTION, WITHIN 10 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $1,425.00.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

            The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP 2030.300(a)(3).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the form interrogatories (“FIs”) and special interrogatories (“SIs”).  (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

The moving party on a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) must submit “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”  (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).)  If the moving party has shown good cause for the RPDs, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections.  (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.)

            Defendant My Management Co., Inc. moves to compel further responses to FIs, set one, and RPDs, set one, from Plaintiff Kumi Kawamura. Defendant served discovery on November 20, 2020. Plaintiff provided responses on June 9, 2021. Following an IDC, Defendant moved to compel further responses to FIs and RPDs, which the Court granted on May 24, 2022. Defendant asserts Plaintiff served inadequate further responses on May 29, 2022 and July 1, 2022. Another IDC was held on August 16, 2022. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has not served any new supplemental responses.

            Generally, the proper procedure to remedy a failure to comply with a discovery order is a motion for sanctions. The Court already has ordered Plaintiff to provide further responses to the subject discovery. As Defendants are seeking production, the Court will allow Plaintiff an additional chance to comply with the Court’s May 24, 2022 order. The motions are GRANTED.

Plaintiff must serve complete, code-compliant responses to the discovery. If Plaintiff again fails to do so, the Court will consider more drastic sanctions.

            Defendant seeks $1,117.50 in sanctions for the motion to compel further responses to RPDs and $1,207.50 for FIs motion. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition and the hearing dates have been consolidated. Accordingly, the Court will allow $667.50 for the RPDs motions and $757.50 for the FIs motion, for a total of $1,425.00.