Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case 19STCV45653 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 19STCV45653, Date: 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

SUBJECT: Defendant Anita Kovacic’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Nicole Abramson to Further Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and for the Imposition of Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,680.00 Against Plaintiff Nicole Abramson and Her Counsel, Lindsay Burton, Montse Murillo, and BB Law Group, LLP, Jointly and Severally

SUBJECT: Defendant Anita Kovacic’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Douglas Stork to Further Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and for the Imposition of Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,680.00 Against Plaintiff Douglas Stork and His Counsel, Lindsay Burton, Montse Murillo, and BB Law Group, LLP, Jointly and Severally

The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant Anita Kovacic’s Motions to Compel.

The Court GRANTS Defendant Anita Kovacic’s Motions to Compel Plaintiffs Nicole Abramson and Douglas Stork to Further Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 12, 17, 18, 21, 22, 25, 28, 30, 32, 36, and 42.

The Court DENIES Defendant Anita Kovacic’s Motions to Compel Plaintiffs Nicole Abramson and Douglas Stork to Further Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 30, 44, 46, 48, 65, and 67.

Defendant Anita Kovacic’s Motions to Impose Monetary Sanctions on Plaintiffs Nicole Abramson and Douglas Stork are DENIED.

Plaintiffs Nicole Abramson and Douglas Stork’s Motions to Impose Monetary Sanctions on Defendant Anita Kovacic are DENIED.

On December 17, 2019, Plaintiffs Nicole Abramson and Douglas Stork filed a complaint against Defendants Anita Kovacic, Marine View Management, Inc., and BLK Properties, LLC alleging the following causes of action:

On April 6, 2021, Plaintiffs Nicole Abramson and Douglas Stork filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendants Anita Kovacic, Marine View Management, Inc., and BLK Properties, LLC alleging the same causes of action.

On July 19, 2022, Defendant Anita Kovacic moved the Court “for the issuance of an Order compelling Plaintiff Nicole Abramson to further respond, without objections, to Form Interrogatory 6.4.” (MTCF (Abramson), filed July 19, 2022, p. 2:5-6.)

On July 19, 2022, Defendant Anita Kovacic moved the Court “for the issuance of an Order compelling Plaintiff Douglas Stork to further respond, without objections, to Form Interrogatory 6.4.” (MTCF (Stork), filed July 19, 2022, p. 2:5-6.) “Additionally, Defendant Kovacic will move the Court, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.300(d), for the issuance of an Order imposing monetary sanctions, in the amount of $2520.00 against Plaintiff Douglas Stork and Plaintiff’s counsel, Lindsay Burton, Montse Murillo, and BB Law Group LLP, jointly and severally.” (MTCF (Stork), filed July 19, 2022, p. 2:11-14.)

On July 22, 2022, Defendant Anita Kovacic moved the Court “for the issuance of an Order compelling Plaintiff Nicole Abramson to further respond, without objections, to Special Interrogatories Nos. 12, 17, 18, 21, 22, 25, 28, 30, 32, 36, 42, 44, 46, 48, 65 and 67 set forth in Defendant Kovacic’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1.” (MTCF (Abramson-SRogs), p. 2:5-8.) “Additionally, Defendant Kovacic will move the Court, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2023.030(a) and 2030.300(d), for the issuance of an Order imposing monetary sanctions, in the amount of $1680.00, against Plaintiff Nicole Abramson and Plaintiff’s counsel, Lindsay Burton, Montse Murillo, and BB Law Group LLP, jointly and severally.” (MTCF (Abramson-SRogs), p. 2:13-16.)

On July 22, 2022, Defendant Anita Kovacic moved the Court “for the issuance of an Order compelling Plaintiff Douglas Stork to further respond, without objections, to Special Interrogatories Nos. 12, 17, 18, 21, 22, 25, 28, 30, 32, 36, 42, 44, 46, 48, 65 and 67 set forth in Defendant Kovacic’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1.” (MTCF (Stork-SRogs), p. 2:5-8.) “Additionally, Defendant Kovacic will move the Court, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2023.030(a) and 2030.300(d), for the issuance of an Order imposing monetary sanctions, in the amount of $1680.00, against Plaintiff Douglas Stork and Plaintiff’s counsel, Lindsay Burton, Montse Murillo, and BB Law Group LLP, jointly and severally.” (MTCF (Stork-SRogs), p. 2:13-16.)

On August 16, 2022, the Court granted Kovacic’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Nicole Abramson to further respond to Form Interrogatory No. 6.4 as to all of Abramson’s medical providers.

On August 16, 2022, the Court granted Kovacic’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Douglas Stork to further respond to Form Interrogatory No. 6.4 as to all of Stork’s medical providers.

On August 16, 2022, the Court granted Kovacic’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,260.00 against Plaintiff Douglas Stork, and Stork’s counsel Lindsay Burton, Montse Murillo, and BB Law Group.

On August 16, 2022, Plaintiff Nicole Abramson opposed Kovacic’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two. Abramson requested sanctions against Kovacic and her counsel in the amount of $3,150.00.

On August 16, 2022, Plaintiff Douglas Stork opposed Kovacic’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two. Stork requested sanctions against Kovacic and her counsel in the amount of $3,150.00.

Motions to compel further responses to discovery requests must always be accompanied by a meet-and confer-declaration (CCP § 2016.040) demonstrating a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion. (Id., §§ 2030.300(b), 2031.310(b)(2), 2033.290(b).) They must also be accompanied by a separate statement containing the requests and the responses, verbatim, as well as reasons why a further response is warranted. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) The separate statement must also be complete in itself; no extrinsic materials may be incorporated by reference. (Id., rule 3.1345(c).) "In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute." (CCP § 2030.300.)

“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (CCP § 2030.300(c).) Any motion to compel further must be filed within 45 days from responses, supplemental responses, or a specific later date agreed to in writing. (CCP §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), 2033.290(c).) Failure to file the motion within the specified period constitutes a waiver of the right to compel a further response. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) The time period is mandatory and jurisdictional in the sense that it renders the Court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them. (Id.)

A motion to compel further responses to form or specially prepared interrogatories may be brought if the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (CCP, § 2030.300(a).)

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).) “To establish ‘good cause,’ the burden is on the moving party to show both: [¶] Relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and [¶] Specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial.) [Citations.] [¶] The fact that there is no alternative source for the information sought is an important factor in establishing ‘good cause’ for inspection. But it is not essential in every case.” (Edmon & Karnow, California Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) ¶ 8:1495.6.)

“For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [Citation.] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation.] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

“If ‘good cause’ is shown by the moving party, the burden is then on the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure (the same as on motions to compel answers to interrogatories or deposition questions).” (Edmon & Karnow, supra, at ¶ 8:1496.)

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP § 2023.030(a).)

The Court rules as follows on Kovacic’s motions to compel further responses from Abramson and Stork on her Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 12, 17, 18, 21, 22, 25, 28, 30, 32, 36, 42, 44, 46, 48, 65, and 67.

Special Interrogatories, Set One
12	GRANT
17	GRANT
18	GRANT
21	GRANT
22	GRANT
25	GRANT
28	GRANT
30		DENY
32	GRANT
36	GRANT
42	GRANT
44		DENY
46		DENY
65		DENY
67		DENY

The Court declines to impose sanctions on Abramson, Kovacic, or Stork in the present matter.

The Court DENIES Defendant Anita Kovacic’s Motions to Compel Plaintiffs Nicole Abramson and Douglas Stork to Further Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 30, 44, 46, 48, 65, and 67.

Defendant Anita Kovacic’s Motions to Impose Monetary Sanctions on Plaintiffs Nicole Abramson and Douglas Stork are DENIED.

Plaintiffs Nicole Abramson and Douglas Stork’s Motions to Impose Monetary Sanctions on Defendant Anita Kovacic are DENIED.