Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV01984, Date: 2025-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV01984    Hearing Date: May 14, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: May 15, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

(2) Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Moving Party: Defendant Yizhak Malka

Responding Party: Plaintiff IRP Fund II Trust 1A

T/R:     THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES IS GRANTED IN PART AS TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET THREE) NOS. 17.1, 50.1, AND 50.2, AND DENIED IN PART AS TO NOS. 50.3 THROUGH 50.6.

            THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES IS DENIED AS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET TWO) NOS. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.

            DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,340.00 PAYABLE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

DEFENDANT 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 January 25, 2024, Plaintiff IRP Fund II Trust 1A filed a Complaint against Defendant Yizhak Malka for: (1) Conversion; (2) Money Had and Received; (3) Mistaken Receipt; (4) Unjust Enrichment; (5) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (6) Intentional Interference with prospective Economic; (7) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; and (8) Open Book Account.

ANALYSIS

A.      Motion to Compel Further Form Interrogatories (Set Three)

Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further response to Form Interrogatory Nos. 17.1 and 50.1 through 50.6. Defendant contends further responses are warranted because the amended responses are patently evasive, and the objections are made in bad faith.

The Court finds that FIs Nos. 17.1, 50.1, and 50.2 are incomplete because Plaintiff fails to provide the facts on which Plaintiff bases its response, the address and telephone numbers of each person who has knowledge of the facts, and who has the document or thing identified as requested. To the extent Plaintiff does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to these interrogatories, Plaintiff was required to state so and make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party. There is no statement speaking to whether Plaintiff does not have the address and telephone numbers of the persons it listed as having knowledge of facts responsive to these interrogatories. Also, the opposition makes no mention of a lack of knowledge as to these facts. Likewise, where Plaintiff contends that the document requested was previously produced in discovery, Plaintiff fails to identify the request number and/or bates numbers per Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.280, subdivision (a). Moreover, for FI No. 50.2, Plaintiff fails to provide the date of every act or omission it claims is a breach of the described agreement as requested.

FIs Nos. 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, 50.6 are code compliant because Plaintiff answered “No,” which is a complete and straightforward answer.

B.      Motion to Compel Further Request for Production of Documents (Set Two)

Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further response to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 11 through 22.

The Court finds that RPDs Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 are compliant. Plaintiff states that all responsive documents in its possession, care, custody, or control will be produced. To the extent that Plaintiff’s responses state all responsive documents not subject to any claim of privilege or work product will be produced, Plaintiff clarified that no documents are being withheld based on any privilege such that a privilege log would need to be produced. (Opp. at 8:19-22 – Shem-tov Decl., ¶7, Ex. G at p.4; Shem-tov Decl., ¶9, Ex. I at p. 3.)

C.      Request for Sanctions

Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $5,340.00 in total for both discovery motions consisting of (1) 6.6 hours for preparing the motions, declarations, and associated separate statements; (2) 2.0 hours on reviewing any oppositions and drafting the replies; (3) 1.0 attending the hearing on the motions at an hourly rate of $550.00; and (4) two $60.00 filing fees. (Shem-tov Form Interrogatory Decl., ¶12, fn. 1; Shem-tov Request for Production Decl., ¶12, fn.1.) Counsel states:

“Since there is a lot of overlap between this motion/separate statement and the motion/separate statement being filed concurrently with respect to Form Interrogatories, Set Three, the 6.6 hours recited here is an average of time spent on the preparation of all these discovery motion documents.”

Plaintiff provides no justification or other circumstances that would make imposition of sanctions unjust. The Court awards sanctions in the amount of $5,340.00.