Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV34711, Date: 2022-08-19 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: 21STCV34711    Hearing Date: August 19, 2022    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:                 Plaintiff Burrell Construction, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Defendants Supplemental Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Production of Responsive Documents

Moving Party:          Plaintiff Burrell Construction, Inc. (“Burrell”)

Resp. Party:             Defendants The Dream at Tamarind, LLC dba The Dream at Tamarind South, LLC (“Tamarind”)

Plaintiff Burrell Construction, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Defendants Supplemental Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Production of Responsive Documents is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.  The Request is GRANTED as to Request Nos. 2-4, 6, 8-40, 42-44, and DENIED as to the remaining requests.

        Plaintiff Burrell Construction, Inc.’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

I.           BACKGROUND

On May 8, 2023, Plaintiff Burrell Construction, Inc. filed a complaint against Defendants The Dream at Tamarind, LLC dba The Dream at Tamarind South, LLC, and Does 1 through 75, inclusive, to allege the following causes of action:

1.           Breach of Contract

2.           Work, Labor, and Materials/ Agreed Price

3.           Open-Book Account

4.           Account Stated

5.           Foreclosure of Mechanics Lien

On February 7, 2022, Defendant and Cross-Complainant The Dream @Tamarind, LLC filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Burrell Construction, Inc., Cross Defendant George R. Robles, Jr., and Roes 1 through 20, inclusive, to allege the following causes of action:

1.           Fraud and Deceit

2.           Promissory Fraud

3.           Negligent Misrepresentation

4.           Breach of Contract

5.           Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

6.           Conversion

7.           Constructive Trust

8.           Money

9.           Misappropriation/ Embezzlement

On July 15, 2022, Plaintiff Burrell Construction Inc. (“Burrell”) moved the Court “compelling Defendant The Dream @ Tamarind, LLC (“Tamarind”) to (1) serve a supplemental response to Burrell’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One; and (2) serve responsive documents to Burrell’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One and documents responsive to the supplemental responses to Burrell’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One.” (Motion, p. 2:5-8.)

On August 9, 2022, Defendant/ Cross-Complainant The Dream @ Tamarind opposed Burrell’s motion.

On August 12, 2022, Burrell replied to Tamarind’s opposition.

II.        ANALYSIS

A.          Legal Standard

1.           Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

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.)

2.           Monetary Sanctions

“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).)

B.          Discussion

1.           Motion to Compel Further Documents

The Court has reviewed the Burrell’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, served March 1, 2022, and Tamarind’s responses, served May 17, 2022. (Johnson Decl., ¶¶ 4, 5, Exs. C, D.)

The Court rules as follows on each production request:

The Court orders that Tamarind provide a privilege log pursuant to CCP § 2031.240 if any documents are being withheld on the grounds of an evidentiary privilege. 

2.           Monetary Sanctions

The Court declines to issue monetary sanctions on any party in relation to the present motion.

III.     CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Burrell Construction, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Defendants Supplemental Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Production of Responsive Documents is GRANTED as to Request Nos. 2-4, 6, 8-40, 42-44.

        Plaintiff Burrell Construction, Inc.’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.