Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV02305, Date: 2024-03-07 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.
Case Number: 20STCV02305 Hearing Date: March 7, 2024 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories — Set Two
Moving Party: Plaintiff Biztracker Systems of St. John, LLC
Resp. Party: Defendant Lavco Solutions, Inc.
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production — Set Two
Moving Party: Plaintiff Biztracker Systems of St. John, LLC
Resp. Party: Defendant Lavco Solutions, Inc.
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Further Reponses to Request for Admissions — Set Two
Moving Party: Plaintiff Biztracker Systems of St. John, LLC
Resp. Party: Defendant Lavco Solutions, Inc.
Plaintiff’s Further SROGs Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Further RPDs Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Further RFAs Motion is DENIED.
Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.
BACKGROUND:
On January 17, 2020, Plaintiff Biztracker Systems of St. John, LLC filed its Complaint against Defendant Lavco Solutions, Inc. on causes of action for intentional interference with contractual relations, trade libel, and unfair business practices.
On April 13, 2020, Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint.
On February 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed: (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories — Set Two (“Further SROGs Motion”); (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production — Set Two (“Further RPDs Motion”); and (3) Motion to Compel Further Reponses to Request for Admissions — Set Two (“Further RFAs Motion”). In support of each of these discovery motions, Plaintiff concurrently filed a Separate Statement and a Declaration of Louis F. Teran.
On February 23, 2024, Defendant filed an Opposition to each of the discovery motions. Each of the oppositions includes a Request for Sanctions.
On March 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed its Reply in support of all the discovery motions.
ANALYSIS:
I. Legal Standard
A. Legal Standard for Further Responses to Interrogatories and/or Requests for Production of Documents
On receipt of a response to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and/or demand requests, the propounding and/or demanding party “may move for an order compelling further response” if: (1) the response is evasive or incomplete; (2) the representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) the objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a).)
The court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further interrogatories and/or a motion to compel further production of documents, unless the Court finds that the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).)
B. Legal Standard for Further Responses to Requests for Admission
¿“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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a).)
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)
II. Discussion
A. The Parties’ Arguments
Plaintiff moves the Court to compel further responses to certain special interrogatories (“SROGs”), requests for production of documents (“RPDs”), and requests for admission (“RFAs”). (Further SROGs Motion, p. 8:27–28; Further RPDs Motion, p. 8:6–8; Further RFAs Motion, p. 7:8–10.)
Defendant opposes the motions, arguing: (1) that the motions should be denied because they are untimely; (2) that the motions should be denied because Plaintiff did not meet and confer; (3) that the motions should be denied because Defendant has already produced supplemental responses, making these motions moot; and (4) that even if the Court were to consider the merits of the motions, they should still be denied. (Opposition to Further SROGs Motion, pp. 4:8, 6:1–2, 7:12–13, 9:18–19; Opposition to Further RPDs Motion, pp. 4:1, 5:16–17, 7:5–6, 9:11–12; Opposition to Further RFAs Motion, pp. 4:8, 6:1–2, 7:12–13, 9:18–19.)
In its Reply, Plaintiff argues: (1) that the motions are proper and timely; (2) that supplemental responses have not been served to the discovery at hand; (3) that Defendant’s discovery objections are improper and evasive; and (4) that Plaintiff “only seeks and is entitled to the truth.” (Reply, pp. 2:1, 3:6, 4:2–3, 6:2.)
B. Timeliness of the Discovery Motions
1. Legal Standard
Parties who propound discovery requests may move for an order compelling further responses to SROGs, RPDs, and RFAs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (a), 2031.310, subdivision (a), and 2033.290, subdivision (a), respectively.
Unless notice of these motions are given within 45 days of the service of the verified responses, or any supplemental verified responses, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c); 2031.310, subd. (c); 2033.290, subd. (c).)
2. Discussion
The following is the timeline of relevant events:
(1) On May 24, 2021, Plaintiff served Defendant with the SROGs, RPDs, and RFAs at issue (Decls. Teran, ¶ 2);
(2) On July 15, 2021, Defendant served initial responses to the SROGs, RPDs, and RFAs at issue (Decls. Teran, ¶ 3);
(3) On July 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed three motions to compel further responses to these SROGs, RPDs, and RFAs;
(4) On August 31, 2021, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment;
(5) On September 2, 2021, Defendant served verified supplemental responses to the SROGs, RPDs, and RFAs (Decl. Newman re: Opposition to Further SROGs Motion, ¶ 4 and Exh. A; Decl. Newman re: Opposition to Further RPDs Motion, ¶ 3 and Exh. A; Decl. Newman re: Opposition to Further RFAs Motion, ¶ 4 and Exh. A);
(6) On September 7, 2021, the Court took off calendar five discovery motions (including the three motions to compel further responses to these SROGs, RPDs, and RFAs) and ordered the Parties to attend an informal discovery conference (Minute Order dated September 7, 2021, p. 3);
(7) On October 22, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Minute Order dated October 22, 2021, p. 16);
(8) On December 21, 2023, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded this matter; and
(9) On February 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed the three current discovery motions.
The original three motions to compel further discovery responses were based on Defendant’s July 15, 2021 responses. However, Defendant served verified supplemental responses on September 2, 2021. From September 2, 2021 (the date of the latest supplemental production) to October 22, 2021 (the date the Court granted summary judgment) was fifty days. That was longer than the forty-five days allowed by the relevant sections of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, these motions to compel further discovery are untimely because Plaintiff waived its right to compel further responses.
The Court DENIES the Further SROGs Motion.
The Court DENIES the Further RPDs Motion.
The Court DENIES the Further RFAs Motion.
C. The Remaining Arguments
The Court need not and does not reach the remaining arguments made by the Parties.
D. Sanctions
Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,032.75 per motion against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel. (Opposition to Further SROGs Motion, p. 13:18–19; Opposition to Further RPDs Motion, p. 16:15–16; Opposition to Further RFAs Motion, pp. 12:28–13:1.)
Plaintiff does not address the issue of monetary sanctions in its Reply.
Defense Counsel declares: (1) that they charge $335.00 per hour in this matter; (2) that they worked twelve hours for each of these motions; and (3) that they incurred $12.75 in filing costs for each opposition. (Decls. Newman, ¶ 6.)
The hourly rate and costs claimed are reasonable, but the number of hours claimed is not. The three oppositions are nearly identical to each other, and even twelve hours for one of these motions is unreasonable. Too put it more bluntly, the Court simply does not believe that defense counsel’s declarations under penalty of perjury that he spent 36 hours and incurred $12,098.25 in attorney's fees and costs on these three oppositions.
“If . . . the Court were required to award a reasonable fee when an outrageously unreasonable one has been asked for, claimants would be encouraged to make unreasonable demands, knowing that the only unfavorable consequence of such misconduct would be reduction of their fee to what they should have asked in the first place. To discourage such greed, a severer reaction is needful.” (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635 [cleaned up].) “A fee request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether.” (Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal.4th 970, 990; Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1137; Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635.)
The court declines to award sanctions.
III. Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Further SROGs Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Further RPDs Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Further RFAs Motion is DENIED.
Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.