Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV35467, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV35467 Hearing Date: January 31, 2023 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Further Respond to Defendant’s
Special Interrogatories
Moving Party: Defendant Jeffrey Sakson
Resp. Party: Plaintiff
Suzanne Porush
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Further Respond to Defendant’s
Requests for Production of Documents, Set Four
Moving Party: Defendant Jeffrey Sakson
Resp. Party: Plaintiff
Suzanne Porush
Defendant’s
SROGs Motion is DENIED. Defendant’s RPDs Motion is DENIED. Defendant’s Requests
for Sanctions are DENIED.
BACKGROUND:
On September 27, 2021, Plaintiff Suzanne
Porush filed her Complaint for Damages against Defendants Dean Sherry, Paul
Colacino, Dennis Sakson, and Duke Property Management, Inc. (“DPMI”) on various
causes of action related to repeated instances of mold in Plaintiff’s home
which led to a collapse of the home’s ceiling.
On December 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed her
First Amended Complaint (FAC). The FAC included the same original Defendants,
as well as Defendant Jeffrey Sakson as Trustee of the Sakson Family Trust
(“Defendant Sakson”).
On January 14, 2022, by request of Plaintiff,
the Clerk’s Office dismissed without prejudice Defendants Sherry and Colacino
from the FAC.
On February 14, 2022,
Defendants/Cross-Complainants Sakson and DPMI filed their Cross-Complaint
against Cross-Defendant DC Danco Air Conditioning Co. Defendants Sakson and
DPMI concurrently filed their respective Answers to the FAC.
On December 27, 2022,
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Jeffrey Sakson filed: (1) Motion to Compel
Plaintiff to Further Respond to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (“SROGs
Motion”); and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Further Respond to Defendant’s
Requests for Production of Documents, Set Four (“RPDs Motion”).
Defendant/Cross-Complainant concurrently filed Separate Statements, Proposed
Orders, Proofs of Service, and Declarations with each of the motions.
On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed: (1)
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special
Interrogatories (“SROGs Opposition”); and (2) Opposition to Defendant’s Motion
to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Productions (“RPDs Opposition”).
On January 24, 2023, Defendant filed: (1)
Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to
Further Respond to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two (“SROGs
Reply”); and (2) Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to
Compel Plaintiff to Further Respond to Defendant’s Requests for Production of
Documents, Set Four (“RPDs Reply”).
ANALYSIS:
I.
Legal Standard
California
Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom form
interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand requests are propounded
within 30 days after service of the requests, unless the time is extended by
agreement of the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a), 2030.270,
subd. (a), 2031.260, subd. (a), 2031.270, subd. (a).) If a party fails to serve
timely responses, "the party making the demand may move for an order
compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).)
By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)
For
a motion to compel, all a propounding party must show is that it properly
served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that
the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely
response. (See Leach v. Super. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905, 906.)
Indeed, "[o]nce [a party] 'fail[ed] to serve a timely response,' the trial
court had authority to grant [opposing party's] motion to compel
responses." (Sinaiko Healthcare Counseling, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare
Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)
II.
Discussion
A.
Special
Interrogatories
Defendant moves the
Court to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to five special
interrogatories and impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,161.65
against Plaintiff. (SROGs Motion, pp. 9:22–27.)
Among other things,
Plaintiff claims that she provided multiple rounds of responses, including
responses prior to the filing of the motion (on November 8, 2022, November 28,
2022, and December 7, 2022). (SROGs Opposition, p. 3:8–13.) Defendant confirms
this, although he continues to argue that the response to SROG No. 16 is
insufficient because Plaintiff has not provided a lease or information
regarding it. (SROGs Reply, p. 4:12–19.)
SPECIAL
INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
List all
amounts of all out-of-pocket expenses that YOU claim are related to YOUR
allegations in YOUR COMPLAINT. (The term “YOU” or “YOUR” shall mean Responding
Party, Responding Party’s present and former agents, and all other such persons
acting on Responding Party’s behalf, including guardians, attorneys, and
investigators.) (The term “COMPLAINT” shall refer to the first amended
complaint filed by YOU in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, on December 30, 2021, in relation to case number 21STCV35467.)
The SROG
clearly does not require Plaintiff to submit a lease, or to specifically state
lease information that has not otherwise been stated. It is undisputed that all
the other responses to SROGs have been served.
The
Court DENIES as moot Defendant’s SROGs Motion. Further, given that Plaintiff
clearly responded multiple times to requests for further responses and has
continued to timely respond to Defendant, the Court denies Defendant’s Request
for Sanctions.
B.
Requests
for Production of Documents
Defendant moves the
Court to compel Defendant to provide further responses to requests for
production of documents (RPDs) Nos. 96, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107,
108, 109 and 120 and to impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,161.65
against Plaintiff. (RPDs Motion, pp. 7:25–27, 8:1–3.)
Just like with the
SROGs, Plaintiff discusses how she twice supplemented discovery responses and
production prior to the filing of the RPDs Motion and has continued to
supplement her production after. (RPDs Opposition, pp. 4:9–14.) Plaintiff
argues that Defendant is leaving motions on the calendar for improper reasons
and that sanctions should not be awarded. (RPDs Opposition, pp. 6:20, 7:7.)
Defendant admits
that supplemental responses have been served but argues that Plaintiff has yet
to produce all documents responsive to Defendant’s requests. (RPDs Reply, p.
4:14–17.) Defendant still seeks Plaintiff’s lease and documents based on
Plaintiff’s production in the folders titled “Damages” and Medical”. (RPDs
Reply, p. 4:17–23.)
The Court’s concern
is that the documents Defendant still seeks are not requested in the Requests
for Production of Documents at issue. According to Defendant, they concern SROGs
Nos. 16 and 17. While these documents may well be relevant and discoverable,
they have not been requested through these RPDs. Again, it is undisputed that
all the responses to RPDs have been served, and the evidence before the Court
does not suggest that Plaintiff will not comply with Defendant’s ongoing
requests.
The
Court DENIES as moot Defendant’s RPDs Motion. Given that Plaintiff clearly
responded multiple times to requests for further responses and has continued to
timely respond to Defendant, the Court denies Defendant’s Request for
Sanctions.
III.
Conclusion
Defendant’s
SROGs Motion is DENIED. Defendant’s RPDs Motion is DENIED. Defendant’s Requests
for Sanctions are DENIED.