Dept. F47

Date: 5/10/23                                             TRIAL DATE: 2/13/24

Case #21CHCV00444

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Form Interrogatories, Set 1)

Motion filed on 3/1/23.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Handy Technologies Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Edmond Niknammoghadam and April Nicholson

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiffs Edmond Niknammoghadam and April Nicholson to provide verified responses, without objections, to Defendant Handy Technologies Inc.’s Form Interrogatories, Set 1, within 10 days of the hearing on this motion.  Additionally, Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiffs in the amount of $3,080.00.

RULING: 

On 11/4/22, Defendant Handy Technologies Inc. (Defendant) served each self-represented Plaintiff, Edmond Niknammoghadam and April Nicholson (collectively, Plaintiffs), with Form Interrogatories, Set 1.  (Noble Decl. Ex.A, C).  Plaintiffs failed to serve responses on or before the 12/6/22 due date and have failed to do so after Defendant’s counsel’s meet and confer efforts.  See CCP 2030.260(a); (Noble Decl., Ex.D-F).

Therefore, on 3/1/23, Defendant filed and served by mail and email, the instant motion seeking an order compelling Plaintiffs to provide verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s  Form Interrogatories, Set 1, within 10 days of the hearing on this motion.  Additionally, Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiffs in the amount of $3,080.00.  Plaintiffs have not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion.

Due to Plaintiffs’ failure to provide timely responses to the subject Form Interrogatories, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiffs to provide responses without objections.  CCP 2030.290(a), (b).  Additionally, Defendant is entitled to an award of sanctions against Plaintiffs for their failure to comply with their discovery obligations.  CCP 2030.290(c).  However, the Court finds that the $3,080.00 in sanctions requested by Defendant is excessive.  

Additionally, the notice of motion sets forth the incorrect address for the courthouse of where the hearing will take place.  See CRC 3.1110(b)(1).  The motion indicates that the hearing will take place in “Department 47 of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, located at 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012” when the actual location of the hearing will be Department F47 of the Superior of California, County of Los Angeles, located at 9425 Penfield Avenue, Chatsworth, CA 91311.  (See Notice of Motion, unnumbered p.1:4-5).

If Plaintiffs appear at the hearing, the motion will be granted.  Responses will be due within 30 days of the hearing and sanctions will be imposed on each Plaintiff in the amount of $625.00 for a total sanction award of $1,250.00 calculated at 2 hours to prepare the motion + ½ hour to appear at the hearing multiplied by $500/hour divided by 2.  Sanctions will also be ordered to be paid within 30 days.  

If Plaintiffs do not appear at the hearing, the matter will be continued so that Defendant can re-notice the matter at the correct courthouse location.  

Dept. F47

Date: 5/11/23 (originally scheduled for 5/10/23)

Case #22CHCV00729 (consolidated with 22CHCV00733)

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Requests for Admissions, Set 1).

 

Motion filed on 2/22/23.

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Albert Gonzalez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Irma Torres

NOTICE: ok

 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant/Cross-Complainant Irma Torres to provide further responses to Requests for Admissions, Set 1, numbers 1-15, 24-26 and 31-35   originally propounded in Case Number 22CHCV00733.  Additionally, Gonzalez requests an order imposing sanctions against Torres and/or her counsel, The Alvarez Firm, in the amount of $4,060.00.

 

RULING: The motion is granted as set forth below. 

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

This action arises out of the business relationship between Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Albert Gonzalez (Gonzalez) and Defendant/Cross-Complainant Irma Torres (Torres).  Gonzalez and Torres, either by membership in limited liability companies or as co-tenants, are 50-50 owners of the following properties: 12341 San Fernando Rd., Los Angeles, CA 91342, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 2611-007-014 (the “Palacio”); 14117 Hubbard St., Los Angeles, CA 91342, APN 2508-027-029 (the “Plaza”); 455 San Fernando Mission Blvd., San Fernando, CA 91340, APN 2521-022-021; 415 San Fernando Mission Blvd., San Fernando, CA 91340, APN 2521-021-027; 12446 San Fernando Rd., Los Angeles, CA 91342, APN 2507-007-030; and a vacant lot with APN 2841-040-017 (“Sand Canyon”).  Prior to 2016, when he died, Torres’ husband, Rafael Torres, Jr. (Raphael) was Gonzalez’s business partner.  Upon Raphael’s death, Torres became joint owners in the above-mentioned Properties with Gonzalez.  Disputes have arisen between Gonzalez and Torres regarding the management of the properties they jointly own.    

 

On 9/2/22, Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all other members of Extra Hubbard, LLC filed an action (22CHCV00729) against Torres for: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty and (2) Declaratory Relief.  On the same day, Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all other members of Super Mission, LLC, filed another action (22CHCV00733) against Torres for: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty and (2) Declaratory Relief.  On 12/20/22, pursuant to a Notice of Related Case, this Court related 22CHCV00729 (Extra Hubbard Case) with 22CHCV00733 (Super Mission Case).  (See 12/20/22 Minute Order).  On 1/3/23, pursuant to the joint stipulation of the parties, this Court consolidated 22CHCV00729 (Extra Hubbard Case) with 22CHCV00733 (Super Mission Case).  (See Joint Stipulation to Consolidate Related Cases and Order filed 1/3/23). 

 

On 10/24/22, in the Super Mission Case, Gonzalez propounded Requests for Admissions, Set 1, on Torres.  (Ziedman Decl., Ex.A).  Pursuant to an agreement to extend the time to respond to discovery, on 1/3/23, Torres served, by mail and email, responses to Gonzalez’s Requests for Admissions, Set 1.  (Id., Ex.B). 

 

Gonzalez found Torres’ responses to Requests for Admissions 1-15, 24-26 and 31-35 to be deficient.  Despite meet and confer efforts, the parties were unable to informally resolve the discovery dispute.  (Ziedman Decl., Ex.C-G).  Therefore, on 2/22/23, Gonzalez filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant/Cross-Complainant Irma Torres to provide further responses to Requests for Admissions, Set 1, numbers 1-15, 24-26 and 31-35   originally propounded in Case Number 22CHCV00733.  Additionally, Gonzalez requests an order imposing sanctions against Torres and/or her counsel, The Alvarez Firm, in the amount of $4,060.00.  Torres has opposed the motion and Gonzalez has filed and served a reply to the opposition. 

   

ANALYSIS

 

CCP 2033.220 provides:

 

“(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) Each answer shall:

(1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.

(2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue.

(3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.

(c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.”

 

CCP 2033.290(a) provides:

 

“(a) On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.”

 

 

 

Torres’ responses to Requests for Admissions, Set 1 include a “General Objections” which, among various other things, state that on 12/14/22 “the parties agreed to stipulate to consolidate Case Nos. 22CHCV00729 and 22CHCV00733, as the cases involve substantially the same parties and factual allegations.  Therefore, DEFENDANT objects to all discovery in the second case, No. 22CHCV00733, on the basis that it is duplicative.”  (See Ziedman Decl., Ex.B, p.1:20-p.3:15 (p.3:10-13 contains the objection based on “duplicative discovery”)).    

 

In the opposition to the motion, Torres fails to  address any of the “General Objections” other than the one based on “duplicative discovery.”  As such, Torres has failed to establish the validity of such objections.  See Coy (1962) 58 C2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Insurance Co. (2000) 22 C4th 245, 255. 

 

The subject Requests for Admissions were served before the Extra Hubbard and Super Mission Cases were related and consolidated.  As such, Gonzalez was within his rights to serve 35 Requests for Admissions in each case without a declaration for additional discovery.  See CCP 2033.030; CCP 2033.050.  Torres cites no authority in her responses or the opposition which supports a finding that Gonzalez was required to serve a declaration for additional discovery before the cases were consolidated.  Additionally, the opposition to the instant motion seems to improperly seek affirmative relief when Torres “ask[s] the Court to affirm that the January 3, 2023, consolidation of these matters constituted a complete consolidation of Case Nos. 22CHCV00729 and 22CHCV00733. Accordingly, Gonzalez should be restricted to propounding all discovery under Case No. 22CHCV00733, and his requests must be non-duplicative.”  (See Opposition, p.8:5-8).  If Torres wanted to seek a protective order, she was required to file a properly noticed motion for such relief.  See CCP 2033.080; CCP 2019.030(b).  Further, even if such a request was appropriately made in the opposition to the instant motion, it would seem that Torres should have requested that discovery be restricted to being propounded in Case No. 22CHCV00729, the earlier filed and lead case.  Based on the foregoing, Torres’ claim that the discovery is objectionable because it is duplicative is without merit.     

 

Additionally, contrary to Torres’ assertion, the Court finds that Gonzalez made sufficient, good faith meet and confer efforts before filing the instant motion.  (See  Zeidman Decl. p.18:16-p.19:13, Ex.C-G).

 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Gonzalez is entitled to an award of sanctions against Torres and/or her counsel, The Alvarez Firm.  CCP 2033.290(d).  However, the Court finds that the $4,060.00 sought is excessive.  (See Zeidman Decl., p.19:15-28).  The Court awards Gonzalez sanctions against Torres and/or her counsel, The Alvarez Firm, in the amount of $2,060.00  calculated at 2 hours to prepare the motion, 2 hours to review the opposition and prepare the reply plus 1 hour to appear at the hearing multiplied by $400/hour plus the $60.00 filing fee.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The motion is granted.  Further responses are due and sanctions are payable within 30 days.

 

The Court notes that counsel for Torres has failed to bookmark the declaration and/or exhibits attached to the motion as required.  See CRC 3.1110(f)(4); (5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil).  Counsel for the parties are warned that failure to comply with these requirements and/or rules in the future may result in matters being continued so that papers may be resubmitted in compliance with the rules and orders, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Dept. F47

Date: 5/11/23

Case #22CHCV00729 (consolidated with 22CHCV00733)

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Requests for Admissions, Set 1).

 

Motion filed on 2/22/23.

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Albert Gonzalez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Irma Torres

NOTICE: ok

 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant/Cross-Complainant Irma Torres to provide further responses to Requests for Admissions, Set 1, numbers 19-24 and 34-35     originally propounded in Case Number 22CHCV00729.  Additionally, Gonzalez requests an order imposing sanctions against Torres and/or her counsel, The Alvarez Firm, in the amount of $1,660.00.

 

RULING: The motion is granted. 

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

This action arises out of the business relationship between Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Albert Gonzalez (Gonzalez) and Defendant/Cross-Complainant Irma Torres (Torres).  Gonzalez and Torres, either by membership in limited liability companies or as co-tenants, are 50-50 owners of the following properties: 12341 San Fernando Rd., Los Angeles, CA 91342, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 2611-007-014 (the “Palacio”); 14117 Hubbard St., Los Angeles, CA 91342, APN 2508-027-029 (the “Plaza”); 455 San Fernando Mission Blvd., San Fernando, CA 91340, APN 2521-022-021; 415 San Fernando Mission Blvd., San Fernando, CA 91340, APN 2521-021-027; 12446 San Fernando Rd., Los Angeles, CA 91342, APN 2507-007-030; and a vacant lot with APN 2841-040-017 (“Sand Canyon”).  Prior to 2016, when he died, Torres’ husband, Rafael Torres, Jr. (Raphael) was Gonzalez’s business partner.  Upon Raphael’s death, Torres became joint owners in the above-mentioned Properties with Gonzalez.  Disputes have arisen between Gonzalez and Torres regarding the management of the properties they jointly own.    

 

On 9/2/22, Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all other members of Extra Hubbard, LLC filed an action (22CHCV00729) against Torres for: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty and (2) Declaratory Relief.  On the same day, Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all other members of Super Mission, LLC, filed another action (22CHCV00733) against Torres for: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty and (2) Declaratory Relief.  On 12/20/22, pursuant to a Notice of Related Case, this Court related 22CHCV00729 (Extra Hubbard Case) with 22CHCV00733 (Super Mission Case).  (See 12/20/22 Minute Order).  On 1/3/23, pursuant to the joint stipulation of the parties, this Court consolidated 22CHCV00729 (Extra Hubbard Case) with 22CHCV00733 (Super Mission Case).  (See Joint Stipulation to Consolidate Related Cases and Order filed 1/3/23). 

 

On 10/24/22, in the Extra Hubbard Case, Gonzalez propounded Requests for Admissions, Set 1, on Torres.  (Ziedman Decl., Ex.A).  Pursuant to an agreement to extend the time to respond to discovery, on 1/3/23, Torres served, by mail and email, responses to Gonzalez’s Requests for Admissions, Set 1.  (Id., Ex.B). 

 

Gonzalez found Torres’ responses to Requests for Admissions 19-24 and 34-35 to be deficient.  Despite meet and confer efforts, the parties were unable to informally resolve the discovery dispute.  (Ziedman Decl., Ex.C-G).  Therefore, on 2/22/23, Gonzalez filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant/Cross-Complainant Irma Torres to provide further responses to Requests for Admissions, Set 1, numbers 19-24 and 34-35 originally propounded in Case Number 22CHCV00729.  Additionally, Gonzalez requests an order imposing sanctions against Torres and/or her counsel, The Alvarez Firm, in the amount of $1,660.00.  Torres has opposed the motion and Gonzalez has filed and served a reply to the opposition. 

   

ANALYSIS

 

CCP 2033.220 provides:

 

“(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) Each answer shall:

(1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.

(2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue.

(3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.

(c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.”

 

CCP 2033.290(a) provides:

 

“(a) On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.”

 

 

 

Torres’ responses to Requests for Admissions, Set 1 include “General Objections” which, among various other things, state that on 12/14/22 “the parties agreed to stipulate to consolidate Case Nos. 22CHCV00729 and 22CHCV00733, as the cases involve substantially the same parties and factual allegations.  Therefore, DEFENDANT objects to all discovery in the second case, No. 22CHCV00733, on the basis that it is duplicative.”  (See Ziedman Decl., Ex.B, p.1:20-p.3:15 (p.3:10-13 contains the objection based on “duplicative discovery”)).    

 

In the opposition to the motion, Torres fails to  address any of the “General Objections” other than the one based on “duplicative discovery” or any of the other objections made in the responses to the Requests for Admissions at issue.  As such, Torres has failed to establish the validity of such objections.  See Coy (1962) 58 C2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Insurance Co. (2000) 22 C4th 245, 255.    

 

The subject Requests for Admissions were served before the Extra Hubbard and Super Mission Cases were related and consolidated.  As such, Gonzalez was within his rights to serve 35 Requests for Admissions in each case without a declaration for additional discovery.  See CCP 2033.030; CCP 2033.050.  Torres cites no authority in her responses or the opposition which supports a finding that Gonzalez was required to serve a declaration for additional discovery before the cases were consolidated.  Additionally, the opposition to the instant motion seems to improperly seek affirmative relief when Torres “ask[s] the Court to affirm that the January 3, 2023, consolidation of these matters constituted a complete consolidation of Case Nos. 22CHCV00729 and 22CHCV00733. Accordingly, Gonzalez should be restricted to propounding all discovery under Case No. 22CHCV00733, and his requests must be non-duplicative.”  (See Opposition, p.8:3-6).  If Torres wanted to seek a protective order, she was required to file a properly noticed motion for such relief.  See CCP 2033.080; CCP 2019.030(b).  Further, even if such a request was appropriately made in the opposition to the instant motion, it would seem that Torres should have requested that discovery be restricted to being propounded in Case No. 22CHCV00729, the earlier filed and lead case.  Based on the foregoing, Torres’ claim that the discovery is objectionable because it is duplicative is without merit.   

 

In addition to incorporating the “General Objections” and setting forth other objections in response to the Requests for Admissions at issue (numbers 19-24 and 34-35), Torres refers to her response to Request for Admission 13 wherein, she again makes the same objections and then states that subject to and without waiving the objections:

 

“PLAINTIFF has negotiated all leases without the knowledge or consent of DEFENDANT, even though the two parties are joint owners of the property described DEFENDANT is therefore not fully informed of the actions of PLAINTIFF regarding the leasing of the property described,  including the material terms of such lease, or the current status of Pueblo Restaurant, Inc. as a  tenant. DEFENDANT is further informed and believes PLAINTIFF is a shareholder, director, and the Chief Executive Officer of Pueblo Restaurant, Inc., and is therefore in a superior position to answer his own Request.”

 

The foregoing “substantive” response is not a proper response to the requests which correspond to allegations made in Torres’ cross-complaint (i.e., that Pueblo had been evicted from the Hubbard property).  Torres has not admitted as much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; denied as much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue and/or specified as much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.  See CCP 2033.220(b).

 

Similarly, what Gonzalez knows is irrelevant for the purposes of Torres’ responding to Requests for Admissions.  Unlike other discovery devices, the purpose of Requests for Admission is not to uncover factual information but to put issues to rest by compelling admission of things that cannot reasonably be controverted.  See Shepard & Morgan (1982) 31 C3d 256, 261; Murillo (2006) 143 CA4th 730, 735; City of Glendale (2015) 235 CA4th 344, 352-353; Orange County Water District (2018) 31 CA5th 96, 115.   

 

Contrary to Torres’ assertion, the Court finds that Gonzalez made sufficient, good faith meet and confer efforts before filing the instant motion.  (See Zeidman Decl. p.18:16-p.19:13, Ex.C-G).

 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Gonzalez is entitled to an award of sanctions against Torres and/or her counsel, The Alvarez Firm, in the amount of $1,660.00.  CCP 2033.290(d); (Ziedman Decl., p.19:15-27).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

 

CONCLUSION

 

The motion is granted.  Further responses are due and sanctions are payable within 30 days.

 

The Court notes that counsel for Torres has failed to bookmark the declaration and/or exhibits attached to the motion as required.  See CRC 3.1110(f)(4); (5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil).  Counsel for the parties are warned that failure to comply with these requirements and/or rules in the future may result in matters being continued so that papers may be resubmitted in compliance with the rules and orders, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

 

 

 

 Dept. F47

Date: 5/12/23

Case #22CHCV00729 (consolidated with 22CHCV00733)

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Form Interrogatories, Set 2).

 

Motion filed on 2/22/23.

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Albert Gonzalez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Irma Torres

NOTICE: ok

 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant/Cross-Complainant Irma Torres to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 2.  Specifically, Gonzalez seeks an order compelling Torres to provide further responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1 originally propounded in Case Number 22CHCV00729 related to Requests for Admissions numbers 19-24 and 34-35.    Additionally, Gonzalez requests an order imposing sanctions against Torres and/or her counsel, The Alvarez Firm, in the amount of $60.00.

 

RULING: The motion is granted as set forth below. 

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

This action arises out of the business relationship between Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Albert Gonzalez (Gonzalez) and Defendant/Cross-Complainant Irma Torres (Torres).  Gonzalez and Torres, either by membership in limited liability companies or as co-tenants, are 50-50 owners of the following properties: 12341 San Fernando Rd., Los Angeles, CA 91342, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 2611-007-014 (the “Palacio”); 14117 Hubbard St., Los Angeles, CA 91342, APN 2508-027-029 (the “Plaza”); 455 San Fernando Mission Blvd., San Fernando, CA 91340, APN 2521-022-021; 415 San Fernando Mission Blvd., San Fernando, CA 91340, APN 2521-021-027; 12446 San Fernando Rd., Los Angeles, CA 91342, APN 2507-007-030; and a vacant lot with APN 2841-040-017 (“Sand Canyon”).  Prior to 2016, when he died, Torres’ husband, Rafael Torres, Jr. (Raphael) was Gonzalez’s business partner.  Upon Raphael’s death, Torres became joint owners in the above-mentioned Properties with Gonzalez.  Disputes have arisen between Gonzalez and Torres regarding the management of the properties they jointly own.    

 

On 9/2/22, Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all other members of Extra Hubbard, LLC filed an action (22CHCV00729) against Torres for: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty and (2) Declaratory Relief.  On the same day, Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all other members of Super Mission, LLC, filed another action (22CHCV00733) against Torres for: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty and (2) Declaratory Relief.  On 12/20/22, pursuant to a Notice of Related Case, this Court related 22CHCV00729 (Extra Hubbard Case) with 22CHCV00733 (Super Mission Case).  (See 12/20/22 Minute Order).  On 1/3/23, pursuant to the joint stipulation of the parties, this Court consolidated 22CHCV00729 (Extra Hubbard Case) with 22CHCV00733 (Super Mission Case).  (See Joint Stipulation to Consolidate Related Cases and Order filed 1/3/23). 

 

On 10/24/22, in the Extra Hubbard Case, Gonzalez propounded Requests for Admissions, Set 1, and Form Interrogatories, Set 2, on Torres.  (Ziedman Decl., Ex.A).  Pursuant to an agreement to extend the time to respond to discovery, on 1/3/23, Torres served, by mail and email, responses to Gonzalez’s Form Interrogatories, Sets 1 and 2.  (Id., Ex.B). 

 

Gonzalez found Torres’ response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 in Set 2 (served in the Extra Hubbard Case) regarding Requests for Admissions numbers 19-24 and 34-35 to be deficient.  Despite meet and confer efforts, the parties were unable to informally resolve the discovery dispute.  (Ziedman Decl., Ex.C-G).  Therefore, on 2/22/23, Gonzalez filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant/Cross-Complainant Irma Torres to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 2.  Specifically, Gonzalez seeks an order compelling Torres to provide further responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1 originally propounded in Case Number 22CHCV00729 (Extra Hubbard Case) related to Requests for Admissions numbers 19-24 and 34-35.  Additionally, Gonzalez requests an order imposing sanctions against Torres and/or her counsel, The Alvarez Firm, in the amount of $60.00.  Torres has opposed the motion and Gonzalez has filed and served a reply to the opposition. 

   

ANALYSIS

 

CCP 2030.220 provides:

 

“(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.

(c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall 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 2030.300(a) provides:

 

“(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

 

 

Form Interrogatory 17.1 provides:

 

“Is your response to each Request for Admission served with these Interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission:

(a) State the number of the request;

(b) State all facts upon which you base your response;

(c) State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and

(d) Identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.”

 

Torres’ responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 2, include “General Objections” which, among various other things, state that on 12/14/22 “the parties agreed to stipulate to consolidate Case Nos. 22CHCV00729 and 22CHCV00733, as the cases involve substantially the same parties and factual allegations.  Therefore, DEFENDANT objects to all discovery in the second case, No. 22CHCV00733, on the basis that it is duplicative.”  (See Ziedman Decl., Ex.B, p.2:1-p.3:17 (p.3:12-15 contains the objection based on “duplicative discovery”)).   

 

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the responding party has the burden of justifying objections or the failure fully to answer interrogatories.  Coy (1962) 58 C2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Insurance Co. (2000) 22 C4th 245, 255.  In the opposition to the motion, Torres fails to  address the “General Objections” or the specific objections she made in response to Form Interrogatory 17.1.  Rather, the opposition focuses on Torres’ “duplicative discovery” objection.  Additionally, Torres claims that Gonzalez did not meet and confer as required before filing the instant motion. 

 

Torres’ objections to Form Interrogatory 17.1 and arguments in opposition to the motion are without merit.  Since Torres only address the “duplicative discovery” objection, she has failed to meet her burden of justifying the other “General Objections” or the other specific objections she made in response to Form Interrogatory 17.1.  See Coy, supra; Fairmont Insurance Co., supra.    

 

The underlying Requests for Admissions and corresponding Form Interrogatory 17.1, were served before the Extra Hubbard and Super Mission Cases were related and consolidated.  As such, Gonzalez was within his rights to serve 35 Requests for Admissions in each case without a declaration for additional discovery.  See CCP 2033.030; CCP 2033.050.  Torres cites no authority in her responses or the opposition which supports a finding that Gonzalez was required to serve a declaration for additional discovery before the cases were consolidated.  Additionally, the opposition to the instant motion seems to improperly seek affirmative relief when Torres “ask[s] the Court to affirm that the January 3, 2023, consolidation of these matters constituted a complete consolidation of these matters constituted a complete consolidation of Case Nos. 22CHCV00729 and 22CHCV00733. Accordingly, Gonzalez should be restricted to propounding all discovery under Case No. 22CHCV00729, and his requests must be non-duplicative.”  (italics in original) (See Opposition, p.8:13-16).  If Torres wanted to seek a protective order, she was required to file a properly noticed motion for such relief.  See CCP 2030.090; CCP 2033.080; CCP 2019.030(b).  Based on the foregoing, Torres’ claim that the discovery is objectionable because it is duplicative is without merit.     

 

Contrary to Torres’ assertion, the Court finds that Gonzalez made sufficient, good faith meet and confer efforts before filing the instant motion.  (See  Zeidman Decl. p.18:17-p.19, Ex.C-G).

 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Gonzalez is entitled to an award of sanctions against Torres and/or her counsel, The Alvarez Firm, in the amount of $60.00.  CCP 2030.300(d);  (See Zeidman Decl., p.19:16-23).

 

CONCLUSION

 

The motion is granted.  Further responses are due and sanctions are payable within 30 days.

 

The Court notes that counsel for Torres has failed to bookmark the declaration and/or exhibits attached to the motion as required.  See CRC 3.1110(f)(4); (5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil).  Counsel for the parties are warned that failure to comply with these requirements and/or rules in the future may result in matters being continued so that papers may be resubmitted in compliance with the rules and orders, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.