Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV01073, Date: 2024-07-30 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: 23CHCV01073 Hearing Date: July 30, 2024 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 7/30/24
TRIAL DATE: 4/1/25
Case #23CHCV01073
MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
(Requests for
Production of Documents, Set 1)
Motion filed on 1/19/24.
MOVING PARTY: Defendants Middleton Investments, Inc. dba
Middleton Construction; Christopher Champion and Teri King
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Alicia and Robert B. Brown
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The motion is granted as set forth
below.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of a dispute between Plaintiffs
Alicia and Robert Brown (Plaintiffs) and Defendants Middleton Investments, Inc.
dba Middleton Construction; Christopher Champion and Teri King (Defendants)
regarding alleged construction defects involving Plaintiffs residence located
at 28852 Iron Village Drive, Valencia, California 91354 (the Property). Plaintiffs hired Defendants to repair
interior stairs and remodel the master bathroom. Plaintiffs terminated Defendants before they
completed the work and retained a new contractor to allegedly repair and/or
replace the work that Defendants performed on the Property.
On 4/12/23, Plaintiffs filed this action against
Defendants for: (1) Breach of Oral Contract; (2) Breach of Covenant of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Negligence; (4) Negligence Per Se; (5) Breach of
Express and Implied Warranties; Recovery on Contractor’s License Bond (against
Hudson Insurance); and (7) Disgorgement.
On 6/23/23, Defendants answered the complaint.
On 7/13/23, Defendants electronically served Plaintiffs
with Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1, making responses due on or
before 8/13/23. (Rutherford Decl., Ex.A). Pursuant to Plaintiffs’ requests for
extensions, responses were due on 9/22/23.
On 9/22/23, Plaintiffs served unverified responses to the
discovery. (Rutherford Decl., Ex.B). Dissatisfied with the unverified responses
and objections contained therein, Defendants sent a meet and confer letter on
10/3/23 which outlined the deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ Responses to Request for
Production Nos. 10, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 36, and 43 and
requested further responses addressing these issues to be served on or before 10/13/23. (Rutherford Decl. ¶10, Ex.C).
Again, Plaintiffs requested extensions of time to further
respond. During the meet and confer
process, the parties agreed to a mutual open-ended extension regarding pending
discovery and associated deadlines on motions to compel so the parties could
engage in informal settlement discussions.
(Rutherford Decl., Ex.D).
On 12/7/23, it became clear that the case would not be
resolved. Therefore, Defendants, again,
requested that Plaintiffs supplement their responses to the subject discovery
requests by 12/20/23 and confirmed that motions to compel further responses
were due 1/20/24. (Rutherford Decl.,
Ex.E). Plaintiffs failed to serve
further responses. (Rutherford Decl.).
Therefore, on 1/19/24, Defendants filed and served the
instant motion seeking an order compelling further responses from Plaintiffs to
Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents, Set 1, Nos. 10, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 43 served on 7/13/23. Additionally, Defendants request an award of
sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel in the amount of $1,950.00. Plaintiffs have not opposed or otherwise
responded to the motion.
ANALYSIS
Generally, a party may obtain discovery regarding any
matter not privileged that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the
action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter
is either itself admissible into evidence or appears reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
CCP 2017.010.
A party who propounded document requests may move to
compel further responses, if it deems that: (1) a statement of compliance with
the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is
inadequate, incomplete, or evasive and/or (3) an objection in the response is
without merit or too general. CCP
2031.310(a).
Since Plaintiffs’ responses to the document requests
contained both substantive responses and objections, without verification, the
responses are the equivalent to objections alone as an unverified response is
the equivalent to no response. See
CCP 2031.250(a); Appleton (1988) 206 CA3d 632, 636.
The subject discovery requests are related to the subject
matter of this action and Plaintiffs have failed to justify their objections as
is their burden. See Fairmont
Insurance Co. (2000) 22 C4th 245, 255.
Request 10 seeks documents between Plaintiffs and any
other person or entity relating to the interior stairs and master bathroom at
the Property. Such information/documents
are clearly relevant to the issues in this action and Plaintiffs’ objections
based on the “collateral source rule” and relevance have no merit.
Requests 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 seeks documents which
support Plaintiffs’ claim for investigative costs, testing costs, expert fees,
consultant fees, expert fees and consultant expenses. Plaintiffs have objected on the ground that
the requests seek premature disclosure of experts/information. However, in their complaint, Plaintiffs have
alleged that they have “sustained property damage, loss of use, and
investigation costs.” (See
Complaint ¶49). Plaintiffs have also alleged
that they “have or will be required to hire experts and/or professional
consultants to investigate and analyze the damages sustained and they
expect to incur additional costs and
expenses for same as the case progresses.”
(Complaint ¶36.a). As such, it is
not clear whether Plaintiffs have any responsive documents which would not constitute
premature expert disclosure. Again,
Plaintiffs have failed to respond to the motion and/or justify their
objection. See
Fairmont Insurance Co., supra. Minimally, Plaintiffs must provide further
responses indicating they have no responsive documents outside of documents
produced by their intended experts in this case.
Request 30 asks for documents that support the proof of
all costs to repair the master bathroom at the Property damaged due to improper
work by Defendants and Request 31 seeks documents that support Plaintiffs’
claim for future costs of repair. Plaintiffs’ objections based on annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, overbreadth and burden are without merit. The requests are directly related and limited
to the issues in this case. Once again,
Plaintiffs’ have failed to meet their burden of justifying their objections. See Fairmont Insurance Co., supra.
Request 32 seeks all documents identified in Plaintiffs’
responses to Special Interrogatories, Set 1 and Request 34 seeks all documents
identified in support of damages alleged against Defendants in this
action. Plaintiffs have indicated that that
they will comply, in part, while preserving privileges. Plaintiffs must clarify whether they are
withholding any responsive documents based on a privilege and, if so, provide a
privilege log pursuant to CCP 2031.240(c).
Requests 35, 36, 37 and 43 seek all documents relating to:
Plaintiffs’ mitigation efforts at the Property; reflecting Plaintiffs’ loss of
use of the Property due to Defendants’ work at the Property; the allegation
that Plaintiffs paid Defendants a premium price for worked performed at the
Property; and the work performed at the master bedroom of the Property after
Defendants were terminated. Plaintiffs’ objections
based on annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, overbreadth and burden are
without merit. The requests are also directly
related and limited to the issues in this case.
Again, Plaintiffs have failed to justify their objections to these
requests. See Fairmont
Insurance Co., supra.
Defendants are entitled to an award of sanctions against
Plaintiffs and their counsel of record for their failure to comply with their
discovery obligations. CCP 2031.310(h). Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $1,530
(6 hours to prepare the motion +1 hour to prepare for and appear at the hearing
multiplied by $210/hour = $1,470 + $60 filing fee). (See Rutherford Decl. ¶15).
CONCLUSION
The motion is granted.
Further responses are due and sanctions are payable within 30 days.
The Court notes that Defendants have failed to
electronically bookmark the exhibits attached to their motion as required. See CRC 3.1110(f)(4). Counsel for the parties are warned that
failure to comply with this requirement in the future may result in matters
being continued so that papers can be re-filed in compliance with the rule,
papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.