Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case 19CHCV00398 2022-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 19CHCV00398, Date: 2022-07-29 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 29, 2022 Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 7/29/22 TRIAL DATE: 1/30/23

Case #19CHCV00398

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Special Interrogatories, Set 2)

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 Special Interrogatories, Set 2, within 10 days. Additionally, Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff and/or its counsel, Roseman Law, APC in the amount of $2,580.00 payable in 30 days.

RULING: The motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part. Further responses to Special Interrogatories 30 and 43 are due within 30 days. The motion is denied as to Special Interrogatories 32, 33, 38 and 39. 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 Special Interrogatories, Set 2, 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 certain of the interrogatories 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 Special Interrogatories, Set 2, numbers 30, 32, 33, 38, 39 and 43, within 10 days. Additionally, Defendant requests sanction against Plaintiff and/or its counsel, Roseman Law, APC in the amount of $2,580.00 payable in 30 days. Plaintiff has opposed the motion.

If the propounding party finds that a response to an interrogatory is evasive or incomplete, that an exercise of the option to produce documents under CCP 2030.320 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, or an objection is without merit or too general, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response after meeting and conferring in an effort to resolve the matter informally. See CCP 2030.300(a), (b).

Each response to an interrogatory must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. CCP 2030.220(a). If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it must be answered to the extent possible. CCP 2030.220(b). If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party must so state, but must 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. CCP 2030.220(c).

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 it was not until the last few weeks that its counsel contacted defense counsel in an effort to resolve the discovery dispute informally. (See Opp. p.3:25-p.4:2). 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 interrogatories at issue, but not to others, as set forth below.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 30: GRANTED.

This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to provide the last known contact information for each person identified in the preceding interrogatory. Plaintiff responded with objections, but then subject to and without waiving the objections, Plaintiff provides substantive information. Plaintiff concludes by stating that it reserves the right to supplement, amend, and withdraw any response or objection.

While Plaintiff has provided substantive information, it has also interposed meritless objections. As such, it cannot be determined whether Plaintiff is withholding responsive information based on such objections. Plaintiff must provide a further response without the objections and including any responsive information which may have been withheld on such bases.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 32: DENIED.

This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to identify each person who has communicated with Defendant regarding the allegations of this lawsuit. Plaintiff has responded with various objections including calls for speculation, vague and ambiguous, seeks information that is already in Defendant’s possession, and unduly burdensome.

Certain of Plaintiff’s objections have merit warranting the denial of the motion as to this interrogatory. Based on Defendant’s argument as to why a further response is warranted, it appears that Defendant intended to ask Plaintiff to identify each person who communicated with Defendant, on behalf of Plaintiff, regarding the allegations of this lawsuit. However, that is not the question which was asked. As worded, the interrogatory is objectionable based on the objections noted above. Plaintiff would have no way of knowing all of the individuals who may have contacted Defendant regarding this lawsuit.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 33: DENIED.

This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to provide the dates on which the access cards of any member of the subject property has been deactivated. Plaintiff has responded with various objections and has indicated that it will not provide dates on which the access cards of any member of the subject property has been deactivated in response to disciplinary proceedings based on privacy grounds. However, Plaintiff states that access cards of all members were deactivated for all members due to COVID-19 related shutdowns on 3/18/20.

Certain of Plaintiff’s objections (vague, ambiguous, overbroad, requests irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, burdensome and harassing) have merit. The question is overbroad in time and scope. As worded, the question asks for dates from the inception of Plaintiff (the date of which is unknown to the Court) and for any reason making it burdensome and harassing. It is also not clear how information regarding the deactivation of an access card for unrelated reasons (i.e., lost or stolen) could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Based on Defendant’s argument as to why a further response is warranted, Defendant may be seeking information as to why access cards were deactivated around the time that Plaintiff sought a restraining order in this case. However, it is not clear making the interrogatory vague and ambiguous.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 38: DENIED.

This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to provide the dates on which Plaintiff has limited the access cards for the subject property. Plaintiff has responded with various objections.

Certain of Plaintiff’s objections (vague, ambiguous, overbroad, requests irrelevant information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, burdensome and harassing) have merit. The question is overbroad in time and scope. As worded, the question asks for dates from the inception of Plaintiff (the date of which is unknown to the Court) and for any reason making it burdensome and harassing. It is also not clear what the term “limited” means or how information regarding the limiting of access cards for unrelated reasons could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Based on Defendant’s argument as to why a further response is warranted, Defendant may be seeking information as to why access cards were deactivated around the time that Plaintiff sought a restraining order in this case. However, it is not clear making the interrogatory vague and ambiguous.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 39: DENIED.

This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to describe the reason Plaintiff limited the access cards for all of the dates identified in Special Interrogatory 38. Again, Plaintiff has responded with various objections, some of which have merit as noted above in relation to Special Interrogatory 38. Until the time frame for the information is clarified and the term “limited” is defined, the question is overbroad, vague, ambiguous and burdensome.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 43: GRANTED.

This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to identify all documents referencing a communication Plaintiff has had with any person regarding Garnik Hakobyan. Plaintiff has responded with objections but then indicates that subject to and without waiving the objections, pursuant to CCP 2030.230, 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. An objection based on privilege is not appropriate in response to an interrogatory as the interrogatory is not seeking the production of any documents. In response to an interrogatory, if Plaintiff is not going to produce documents it deems to be privileged, it must provide identifying information for such documents, similar to a privilege log, so that Defendant and/or the Court can determine whether the documents are truly privileged. See CCP 2031.240(b),(c). To the extent Plaintiff is claiming that responsive documents, pursuant to CCP 2030.230, are already in Defendant’s possession or are otherwise available, Plaintiff has also failed to identify such responsive documents.

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 $1,260.00 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 $1,260.00 based on 3 hours of attorney time at $400/hour for the preparation of the motion in relation to the successful interrogatories (2 out of 6), review of the opposition, preparation of the reply and appearance at the hearing plus a $60.00 filing fee.