Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 21STCV20577, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling

All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.

Case Number: 21STCV20577    Hearing Date: April 17, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Hearing date:  April 17, 2024

Moving Party:  Defendant Conam Management Corporation

Responding Party:  Plaintiff Angeline Brown

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One)     

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

            The motion is DENIED.

            The request for sanctions is also DENIED.

Background

            On June 1, 2021, Plaintiff Angeline Brown (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative Complaint against Defendants Beverly Hills Properties, LLC, a California limited liability company; Donald T. Sterling Corporation, a California corporation; Rochelle Sterling, as Trustee of the Sterling Family Trust; The Sterling Family Trust; and Conam Management Corporation, a California corporation (“Defendants”) for (1) Violation of Section 25249.6 of the Health & Safety Code and (2) Declaratory Relief.

            On October 10, 2023, Defendant Conam Management Corporation (“Conam”) filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One). On April 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On April 10, 2024, Conam filed a reply.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.300, subdivision (a), parties may move for a further response to interrogatories where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general.¿¿

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).)¿¿

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).¿

Discussion

            Notice

Defendant Conam Management Corporation (“Conam”) propounded Special Interrogatories (Set One) on February 24, 2023. (Wolter Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) On April 28, 2023, Plaintiff served objection-only responses. (Id. ¶ 4, Ex. B.) Plaintiff finally served supplemental responses on August 15, 2023, after additional extensions were provided by Conam. (Id. ¶ 6, Ex. D.) Therefore, the present motion is properly noticed because it was filed forty-five (45) days after Conam received Plaintiff’s supplemental responses.

Meet and Confer

Conam advances the declaration of its counsel of record, Theodore S. Wolter attesting to meet and confer efforts prior to the filing of this instant motion. Wolter avers he sent a meet and confer letter, requesting proper and substantive responses after receiving Plaintiff’s objection-only responses on April 28, 2023. (Wolter Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Exs. B-C.) Wolter further avers Plaintiff served supplemental responses on August 15, 2023. (Id. ¶ 6, Ex. D.) Moreover, Wolter avers that he sent an additional meet and confer letter on September 12, 2023 but despite the efforts and multiple extensions granted to Plaintiff, no supplemental responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 21, 22, 24, and 25 have been provided. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8, Ex. E.)

Therefore, Conam has sufficiently met and conferred on this matter before bringing the instant motion.

Motion to Compel Further Responses

Conam moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to serve further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 21, 22, 24, and 25. Conam argues Plaintiff’s blanket objections are unmeritorious and cannot justify Plaintiff’s withholding of substantive answers. Conam further argues Plaintiff’s responses are not code-compliant because they are evasive and incomplete. Specifically, Conam contends Plaintiff’s supplemental responses merely cited to her entire document production in lieu of answering.  Moreover, Conam contends contention interrogatories are expressly contemplated and allowed for by statute, and the contention interrogatories here do not seek "a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from" any documents. Similarly, Conam asserts even if it would have been appropriate for Plaintiff to indiscriminately cite to her entire document production in lieu of answering any interrogatories, Plaintiff here would not have this option as neither her initial nor her supplemental responses timely cited to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.230 as required by the statute for election to produce documents. Additionally, Conam argues Plaintiff’s document production, even in its entirety, does not adduce any facts supporting the contentions Plaintiff plead in her Complaint or the information sought by the specific interrogatories at issue in this Motion.  Lastly, Conam asserts Plaintiff refers Conam to her entire document production, so even then it is not in compliance with to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.230.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues she was undisputedly entitled to assert and rely upon the attorney-work product privilege and premature disclosure of expert opinion. Plaintiff further contends she provided detailed, meaningful, and substantive information in response to the SROGs because the election refer to writings from which the answers to these SROGs could be elicited provided that no documents separating the underlying facts used by counsel, in consultation with Plaintiff had ever been created. Plaintiff also asserts there is no factual basis for Conam and its counsel’s accusations of evasiveness. Finally, Plaintiff contends she did timely exercise her option to produce documents, thus it was not waived.

In reply, Conam argues Plaintiff misrepresents that substance of the subject interrogatories, which seek facts and witnesses in support of specific, cited allegations in the Complaint not facts and person with knowledge that violations of Proposition 65 is ongoing. Furthermore, Conam contends Plaintiff did not carry her burden to justify her objections, invoke the work product doctrine, and as to expert disclosure. In addition, Conam asserts Plaintiff’s responses are inadequate because reference to documents is improper and Plaintiff waived the option in her initial responses. Last, Conam argues it does not seek Plaintiff’s counsel’s impressions of these facts or witness on the facts and the identity of the witnesses themselves.

Upon review of the Separate Statement, the Court finds that Conam is not entitled to code-complaint, objection-less further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 21, 22, 24, and 25. Each request seeks information regarding all facts Plaintiff’s has to support her allegations made in the Complaint at Paragraphs 27 and 31, and to identify the persons with knowledge of these facts, which is overbroad, vague, and may call for premature expert  disclosure. Furthermore, under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.290, subdivision (a), a party who fails to timely serve a response to interrogatories waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230. Here, Conam admits it provided Plaintiff with extensions to serve her initial responses, so she did not waive her option under Section 2030.230. Finally, Plaintiff specifically refers to an election of documents produced to Conam and identifies Rochelle Sterling and management personnel as the persons with the knowledge of these facts.

Therefore, the motion to compel further responses is DENIED.

Request for Sanctions

Where the court grants a motion to compel further responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (e).)

Here, the motion is DENIED.

Therefore, the request for sanctions is also DENIED.

            It is so ordered.

Dated: April 17, 2024

_______________________

ROLF M. TREU

Judge of the Superior Court