Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 21CHCV00170, Date: 2022-08-08 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: 21CHCV00170    Hearing Date: August 8, 2022    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 8/8/22

Case #21STCV05601

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Special Interrogatories, Set 1)

Motion filed on 1/14/22.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant John Thomas, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Gloria Brown

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Gloria Brown (Plaintiff) to serve further responses to Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant John Thomas, LLC’s (Defendant) Special Interrogatories, Set 1, numbers 3-10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 21, 23, 24,

27-30 and 33-35.  Additionally, Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $5,400.00.

RULING: The motion is granted as set forth below.  Further responses are due and sanctions are payable within 30 days. 

This action arises out of Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Gloria Brown’s (Plaintiff) claim that defendants, including Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant John Thomas, LLC (Defendant) schemed to solicit and victimize her so that they could profit from the eventual loss of Plaintiff’s home. 

On 5/21/21, Defendant served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories, Set 1.  (Vescera Decl., Ex.A).  On 6/22/21, Plaintiff served responses some of which Defendant found to be deficient.  (Vescera Decl., Ex.B).  After Defendant sent its first meet and confer letter, the parties agreed to mediate the case and discovery was stayed pending the outcome of the mediation.  The mediation was not successful.  (Vescera Decl.).  Thereafter, the parties resumed meet and confer efforts and the motion deadline was extended to 1/17/22.  (Vescera Decl., Ex.E).  The parties were unable to informally resolve the discovery dispute.  Therefore, on 1/14/22, Defendant filed and served the instant motion which seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to serve further responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set 1, numbers 3-10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 21, 23, 24,

27-30 and 33-35.  Additionally, Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $5,400.00.  Plaintiff has opposed the motion. 

The subject special interrogatories seek information regarding the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint.  While Plaintiff has provided information in response to the interrogatories, she has done so “subject to and without waiving” various meritless objections.  In the opposition, Plaintiff does not argue the merits of the objections.  Rather, Plaintiff claims that she is “confused” as to why Defendant “takes issue with its assertion of objections when Plaintiff provided substantive and complete responses to each of the Special Interrogatories notwithstanding the objections.” (emphasis in original) (See Opp. p.2:20-22).  Plaintiff goes on to argue that Defendant “points to no interrogatory where Plaintiff withheld any information on the basis of any of its objections” and then states, “Plaintiff has not.”  (See Opp. p.2:22-23). 

Based on the assertion of the objections and the statement that the responses are provided “subject to and without waiving” the objections, Defendant would have no way of knowing whether Plaintiff has additional information which was withheld based on the meritless objections.  As such, Defendant is entitled to further responses without the meritless objections.  The fact that Defendant may have asserted similar objections in response to Plaintiff’s discovery is not at issue in this motion.  (See Opp. p.2:27-p.3:2; Brault Decl. ¶¶6-7).  If Plaintiff believed that Defendant’s objections to discovery requests were without merit or otherwise improper, Plaintiff was required to file a motion to compel further responses which specifically addressed Defendant’s discovery responses. 

If Plaintiff is not withholding any information based on the meritless objections, the substantive responses provided are sufficient.  The fact that Defendant thinks Plaintiff should have more facts to support the contentions made in the complaint or that responses asserted do not support the contentions are not valid bases for the court compel further responses. 

If Plaintiff tries to later introduce evidence which she withheld during discovery, Defendant may then take steps to exclude such evidence.  If the facts offered in response to the interrogatories are the only facts Plaintiff has and Defendant believes that they are insufficient to support her claims, Defendant can make such argument at the appropriate time.  The Court cannot compel Plaintiff to provide additional facts, if she states in verified discovery responses that she has provided all responsive information without stating that such information is provided “subject to and without waiving objections” which the Court has found to be meritless.

While the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to an award of sanctions against Plaintiff, the Court finds that the $5,400.00 requested by Defendant is excessive.  Therefore, the Court awards Defendant $1,500.00 (3 hours to prepare motion + 1 hour to review opposition and prepare reply + 1 hour to appear at $300/hour) against Plaintiff.