Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV45196, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV45196    Hearing Date: August 12, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 12, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery and Compel Compliance

Moving Party: Defendants/Cross-Complainants Imani Halley and True to the Game Productions, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Quincy Smith

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

PLAINTIFF TO SERVE EITHER FURTHER RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS, OR TO SERVE A SWORN STATEMENT THAT PLAINTIFF HAS PROVIDED ALL RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS AND ALL RESPONSIVE INFORMATION IN PLAINTIFF’S POSSESSION WITHIN 5 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

            DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            On November 24, 2020, Plaintiff Quincy Smith sued Defendants Imani Halley and True to the Game Productions, Inc., asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract; and (2) accounting. Plaintiff alleges that the parties entered two contracts in which Plaintiff agreed to loan two payments of $30,000.00 to Defendants to be used to a produce a film. Plaintiff alleges that the first $30,000.00 loan was to be repaid by April 30, 2016 and, if it was not, Plaintiff would be entitled to production film credit, 10% interest on all income and profits from the film and $30,000.00 after the sale of the film. The second $30,000.00 payment was in exchange for another producer credit, 3.5% income and profits of the film and $30,000.00 after the sale of the film. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have not repaid any part of the loans or paid out the required percentages of income and profits from the film.

            September 24, 2021, Imani Halley and True to the Game Productions, Inc filed a first amended cross-complaint against Smith, asserting causes of action for (1) declaratory relief; (2) rescission of contract; and (3) reformation of contract. Cross-Complainants allege the loans are usurious and unenforceable.

.

ANALYSIS

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.)

CCP § 2031.320(a) provides “[i]f a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.¿.¿. thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party's statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.”

Defendants move to compel further response to SI no. 32 and to compel compliance with Plaintiff’s statement of compliance in response to RPDs. SI no. 32 asks Plaintiff to explain how Plaintiff calculated the amount allegedly owed by Defendants to Plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts that further response to SI no. 32 and documents have been served since the filing of this motion. In reply, Defendants state that the responses remain insufficient.

Plaintiff represents that all responsive documents have been served and that Plaintiff has provided as much information about the calculations of damages as Plaintiff possess. Technically, Defendants’ motion is now moot. However, as Defendants remain unsatisfied, the Court will allow Plaintiff one more chance to either serve further responses and documents, or to serve a sworn statement that Plaintiff has provided all responsive documents and all the responsive information in Plaintiff’s possession.

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court declines to award sanctions as this issue could have been resolved with meaningful meet and confer.