Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case 19CHCV00398 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 19CHCV00398, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 19CHCV00398 Hearing Date: July 28, 2022 Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 7/28/22 TRIAL DATE: 1/30/23

Case #19CHCV00398

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Requests for Production of Documents, Set 3)

Motion filed on 5/2/22.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Tamara Nazaretyan

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Aldea Community Association

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff Aldea Community Association to provide verified further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set 3, within 10 days. Additionally, Defendant requests sanction against Plaintiff and/or its counsel, Roseman Law, APC in the amount of $2,890.00 payable in 30 days.

RULING: The motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part. Further responses to Requests 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47 and 49 are due within 30 days. The motion is denied as to Requests 44, 45, 46 and 50. Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted as set forth below. Sanctions are payable within 30 days.

The parties are, again, reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. (See 7/8/22 Minute Order). When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. See also CRC 3.1110(f)(4). Plaintiff and Defendant have both failed to bookmark the declarations, exhibits and/or proofs of service attached to their respective papers in violation of the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

This is an action by a homeowner’s association, Plaintiff Aldea Community Association (Plaintiff), against one of its members, Defendant Tamara Nazaretyan (Defendant). Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for breach of CC&Rs, injunctive relief, declaratory relief and nuisance. Defendant allows her adult son, who suffers from Schizoaffective Bipolar Disorder, to reside with Defendant which gives him access to the common areas of the development where he has engaged in violent, disruptive, frightening and offensive behavior.

On 2/22/22, Defendant served Requests for Production of Documents, Set 3, on Plaintiff. (Babaian Decl., Ex.A). On 3/25/22, Plaintiff served responses to the discovery. (Id., Ex.B). Defendant found Plaintiff’s responses to the requests to be deficient. Therefore, on 4/6/22, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter. (Id., Ex.C). Defense counsel did not respond until after the motion was filed and served. (See Babaian Decl.; Malone Decl.).

Therefore, on 5/2/22, Defendant filed the instant motion seeking an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set 3, numbers 39-47 and 49-50, within 10 days. Additionally, Defendant requests sanction against Plaintiff and/or its counsel, Roseman Law, APC in the amount of $2,890.00 payable in 30 days.

If the propounding party finds that a response to a document request is incomplete, that a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete or evasive or an objection is without merit, the propounding party may mover for an order compelling a further response after meeting and conferring in an effort to resolve the matter informally. See CCP 2031.310(a), (b).

Both parties dispute whether the other adequately met and conferred regarding the discovery and responses at issue in this motion. (See Babaian Decl.; Malone Decl.). Plaintiff concedes that Defendant sent a 9 page meet and confer letter regarding the discovery responses to which Plaintiff failed to respond before the motion was filed. (See Malone Decl.). Plaintiff’s counsel blames defense counsel for failing to make further efforts to meet and confer regarding this discovery before filing the motion. Id. However, Plaintiff’s counsel could have just as easily addressed the discovery responses during the parties several discussions and meeting and conferring on other issues as defense counsel had received the meet and confer letter. (See Malone Decl. ¶¶4-6). Further, Plaintiff concedes that months after the motion was filed and the trial date was continued, on 7/12/22, Plaintiff offered to provide further responses, but has still not done so. (See Opp. p.5:17-20; Reply p.4:14-16). As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer which forced Defendant to file the instant motion.

The Court finds that further responses are warranted to certain of the requests at issue, but not to others, as set forth below.

REQUEST 39: GRANTED.

This request asks Plaintiff to produce all documents identified in Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories. Plaintiff has responded with objections but then indicates that subject to and without waiving the objections, Plaintiff will produce all non-privileged documents or things responsive to the request that exist and which are in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff to which no objection is being made and that have not already been provided. Plaintiff goes on to state that it reserves the right to supplement, amend, and withdraw any response or objection.

The response is inadequate. Plaintiff has failed to justify any of the objections set forth in the response. With regard to objections based on privilege, Plaintiff has failed to provide a privilege log. See CCP 2031.240(b),(c). Plaintiff has also failed to identify responsive documents which have previously been produced. Based on the response, it cannot be ascertained whether there may have been responsive documents which no longer exist, and if so why, or whether others may be in possession of responsive documents. See CCP 2031.230. Plaintiff cannot assert objections because they may apply to unknown responsive documents which Plaintiff may discover in the future. Defendant is entitled to a response under oath as to whether any documents are being withheld and on what bases.

REQUEST 40: GRANTED.

This request asks Plaintiff to identify all documents evidencing a communication with PMP Management regarding this lawsuit. Plaintiff has responded with objections but then indicates that subject to and without waiving the objections, Plaintiff will produce all non-privileged documents or things responsive to the request that exist and which are in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff to which no objection is being made and that have not already been provided. Plaintiff goes on to state that it reserves the right to supplement, amend, and withdraw any response or objection.

The response is inadequate. Plaintiff has failed to justify any of the objections set forth in the response. Plaintiff has also failed to identify responsive documents which have previously been produced. Based on the response, it cannot be ascertained whether there may have been responsive documents which no longer exist, and if so why, or whether others may be in possession of responsive documents. See CCP 2031.230. It is also unclear whether Plaintiff is withholding responsive documents based on privilege as no privilege log has been provided. CCP 2031.240(b), (c). Plaintiff cannot assert objections because they may apply to unknown responsive documents which Plaintiff may discover in the future. Defendant is entitled to a response under oath as to whether any documents are being withheld and on what bases.

REQUESTS 41, 42 & 43: GRANTED.

These requests ask Plaintiff to all produce documents evidencing communications with PMP Management regarding Garnik Hakobyan (Defendant’s son – number 41), Tamara Nazaretyan (Defendant – number 42) and Anahit Nazaretyan (Defendant’s mother – number 42). Plaintiff has responded with objections but then indicates that subject to and without waiving the objections, Plaintiff will produce all non-privileged documents or things responsive to the requests that exist and which are in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff to which no objection is being made and that have not already been provided. Plaintiff goes on to state that it reserves the right to supplement, amend, and withdraw any responses or objections.

The response is inadequate. Plaintiff has failed to justify any of the objections set forth in the responses. With regard to objections based on privilege, Plaintiff has failed to provide a privilege log. See CCP 2031.240(b),(c). Plaintiff has also failed to identify responsive documents which have previously been produced. Based on the responses, it cannot be ascertained whether there may have been responsive documents which no longer exist, and if so why, or whether others may be in possession of responsive documents. See CCP 2031.230. Plaintiff cannot assert objections because they may apply to unknown responsive documents which Plaintiff may discover in the future. Defendant is entitled to responses under oath as to whether any documents are being withheld and on what bases.

REQUEST 44: DENIED.

This request asks Plaintiff to produce all documents evidencing communications with Aram Touloumdjian. Plaintiff has responded with various objections, including vague and ambiguous, overbroad, requests information which is irrelevant, etc. Plaintiff goes on to state that subject to and without waiving the objections, Plaintiff will produce all non-privileged documents or things responsive to the requests that exist and which are in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff to which no objection is being made and that have not already been provided. Plaintiff goes on to state that it reserves the right to supplement, amend, and withdraw any responses or objections.

Certain of Plaintiff’s objections have merit warranting the denial of the motion as to this request. In the separate statement, Defendant indicates that “Aram Touloumdjian is a member of the HOA and was one of the main individuals Plaintiff relied upon in pursuing these claims against Plaintiff [sic]. Plaintiff does not deny that the individual provided information and documents to support Plaintiff’s lawsuit, and also encouraged other homeowners in the community to act.” (See Defendant’s Reason Further Response is Required as to Request 44). While the foregoing may be true, the subject request is not limited to documents regarding communications regarding this action or incidents with Defendant’s son.

As a member of the HOA, Aram Touloumdjian could have had communications with Plaintiff regarding matters completely unrelated to this action. As such, the request is overbroad as to time and scope.

REQUEST 45: DENIED.

This request asks Plaintiff to produce all documents evidencing training, experience, or knowledge of any person who has managed the subject property. Plaintiff has responded with various objections, including vague and ambiguous, overbroad, requests information which is irrelevant, etc. Plaintiff goes on to state that subject to and without waiving the objections, Plaintiff will produce all non-privileged documents or things responsive to the requests that exist and which are in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff to which no objection is being made and that have not already been provided. Plaintiff goes on to state that it reserves the right to supplement, amend, and withdraw any responses or objections.

Certain of Plaintiff’s objections have merit warranting the denial of the motion as to this request. The request is vague and ambiguous. It is not clear who qualifies as “any PERSON who has managed the SUBJECT PROPERTY.” Defendant’s reason for a further response indicates that Defendant is seeking information regarding board members. However, a plain reading of the request would also seem to include employees of any management company employed by the HOA. Additionally, the request is overbroad as to time and scope.

REQUEST 46: DENIED.

This request asks Plaintiff to produce all documents evidencing communications with Jerome Black from May 1, 2017 to the present. Plaintiff has responded with various objections, including vague and ambiguous, overbroad, requests information which is irrelevant, etc. Plaintiff goes on to state that subject to and without waiving the objections, Plaintiff will produce all non-privileged documents or things responsive to the requests that exist and which are in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff to which no objection is being made and that have not already been provided. Plaintiff goes on to state that it reserves the right to supplement, amend, and withdraw any responses or objections.

Certain of Plaintiff’s objections have merit warranting the denial of the motion as to this request. In the separate statement, Defendant indicates that “Jerome Black is a former member of the HOA. He was a sitting member of the board of directors when the subject incident involving Garnik occurred. He was a decision maker and his communications regarding the decision-making process are important to ascertain the real motivation of Plaintiff to pursue this lawsuit.” (See Defendant’s Reason Further Response is Required as to Request 46).

While the request is limited in time, it is not limited in scope as contended by Defendant. As a former member of the HOA and board member, Jerome Black could have had communications with Plaintiff regarding matters completely unrelated to this action. As such, the request is overbroad in scope.

REQUEST 47: GRANTED.

This request asks Plaintiff to produce all documents evidencing communications by and between any board members regarding the instant lawsuit. Plaintiff has responded with objections but then indicates that subject to and without waiving the objections, Plaintiff will produce all non-privileged documents or things responsive to the request that exist and which are in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff to which no objection is being made and that have not already been provided. Plaintiff goes on to state that it reserves the right to supplement, amend, and withdraw any response or objection.

The response is inadequate. Plaintiff has failed to justify any of the objections set forth in the response. With regard to objections based on privilege, Plaintiff has failed to provide a privilege log. See CCP 2031.240(b),(c). Plaintiff has also failed to identify responsive documents which are purportedly already in Defendant’s possession or otherwise available. Based on the response, it cannot be ascertained whether there may have been responsive documents which no longer exist, and if so why, or whether others may be in possession of responsive documents. See CCP 2031.230. Plaintiff cannot assert objections because they may apply to unknown responsive documents which Plaintiff may discover in the future. Defendant is entitled to a response under oath as to whether any documents are being withheld and on what bases.

REQUEST 49: GRANTED.

This request asks Plaintiff to produce all documents evidencing communications by and between any board members regarding any member of Defendant’s household. Plaintiff has responded with objections but then indicates that subject to and without waiving the objections, Plaintiff after a diligent search, Plaintiff cannot produce any further documents. Plaintiff goes on to state that it reserves the right to supplement, amend, and withdraw any response or objection.

The response is inadequate. Plaintiff has failed to justify any of the objections set forth in the response. With regard to objections based on privilege, Plaintiff has failed to provide a privilege log. See CCP 2031.240(b),(c). Plaintiff has also failed to identify responsive documents which are purportedly already in Defendant’s possession or otherwise available. Plaintiff cannot assert objections because they may apply to unknown responsive documents which Plaintiff may discover in the future. Defendant is entitled to a response under oath as to whether any documents are being withheld and on what bases.

REQUEST 50: DENIED.

This request asks Plaintiff to produce all documents referencing the deactivation of access cards for the subject property. Plaintiff has responded with various objections, including vague and ambiguous, overbroad, requests information which is irrelevant, etc. Plaintiff goes on to state that it reserves the right to supplement, amend, and withdraw any responses or objections.

Certain of Plaintiff’s objections have merit warranting the denial of the motion as to this request. First, it is not clear what documents are being sought (i.e., documents regarding the physical process to deactivate access cards (i.e., instructions on how to do it); documents regarding why access cards may be deactivated, who has the authority to deactivate access cards, documents regarding the deactivation of specific access cards, etc.). As such, it is not clear how/why responsive documents are relevant to this action. Additionally, as worded, the request is overbroad as to time and scope.

SANCTIONS

While neither party was completely successful on the merits of the motion, sanctions are imposed on Plaintiff and its counsel, Roseman Law, APC in the amount of $2,060.00 for their failure to respond to Defendant’s meet and confer efforts before the filing of the motion. See CCP 2023.020. The Court finds that the reasonable expenses incurred by Defendant as a result of the foregoing are $2,060.00 based on 5 hours of attorney time at $400/hour for the preparation of the motion, review of the opposition, preparation of the reply and appearance at the hearing plus a $60.00 filing fee. The fact that Plaintiff offered to provide further responses on 7/12/22 and pay $250.00 was not adequate. By that time, Defendant had already reasonably incurred at least $800.00 attorneys’ fees and $60.00 in costs related to the motion. (See Opp. p.4:23-p.5:6). Further, Plaintiff has still not provided further responses. (Reply, p.4:14-16).