Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV14150, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV14150 Hearing Date: April 26, 2024 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to
Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
Moving Party: Big Bus Tours
Los Angeles, Inc.
Resp. Party: Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc.
The Further SROGs Motion is GRANTED.
Starline shall provide further responses
to the SROGs at issue within 10 days of the issuance of this Order.
BACKGROUND:
On April 28, 2022,
Big Bus Tours Los Angeles, Inc. (“BBTLA”) filed its Complaint against Starline
Tours of Hollywood, Inc. (“Starline”) on causes of action for unfair
competition (statutory and common law), intentional interference with
prospective economic advantage, and false advertising.
On June 8, 2022, the
Court found related cases 19STCV36480 and 22STCV14150, and designated
19STCV36480 as the lead case.
On October 31, 2022,
the Court sustained Starline’s Demurrer to the Complaint’s third cause of
action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.
On December 7, 2022,
Starline filed: (1) Answer to the Complaint; and (2) Cross-Complaint against
BBTLA, Vector Media South, LLC, Vector Media Holding Corp., Big Bus Tours,
Ltd., Julia Conway, Patrick Waterman, Marc Borzykowski, Justin Steinfelder,
Robert Gutierrez, Open Top Sightseeing USA, and Sprint.
On April 20, 2023,
Starline filed its First Amended Cross-Complaint (FACC).
On July 13, 2023, the
Court dismissed with prejudice Big Bus Tours, Ltd., Julia Conway, Patrick
Waterman, Open Top Sightseeing USA, Vector Media South, LLC, Vector Media Holding
Corp., Marc Borzykowski, Justin Steinfelder, and Robert Gutierrez from the
FACC. The Court also sustained BBTLA’s Demurrer to the FACC’s sixth cause of
action for fraud and conspiracy, abating that cause of action because there was
another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.
On March 28, 2024,
BBTLA filed its Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
(“Further SROGs Motion”). In support of its Further SROGs Motion, BBTLA
concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Joseph B. Weiner; and (2) Separate
Statement.
On April 2, 2024,
BBTLA filed its Answer to the FACC.
On April 15, 2024,
Starline filed its Opposition to the Further SROGs Motion. In support of its
Opposition, Starline filed its Response to Separate Statement.
On April 19, 2024,
BBTLA filed its Reply in support of its Further SROGs Motion.
ANALYSIS:
I.
Legal
Standard
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).)
II.
Discussion
A.
The Parties’ Arguments
BBTLA moves the Court to compel Starline to provide further responses to
certain special interrogatories (“SROGs”). (Further SROGs Motion, p. 17:2–4.)
Starline opposes the Further SROGs Motion, arguing: (1) that Starline has
provided proper responses to the SROGs at issue; and (2) that Starline provided
a full and complete response despite BBTLA’s untimely motion as to SROG No. 24.
(Opposition, pp. 6:8–9, 9:1–2.)
In its Reply, BBTLA argues: (1) that
Starline did not specify the documents that contain the answers to the SROGs;
(2) that the Parties’ burdens are not substantially the same; (3) that Starline
cannot state that its production contains the requested information; (4) that
Starline misrepresents the Parties’ meet and confer discussions; and (5) that
the motion is not untimely as to SROG No. 24 and Starline response to it is
deficient. (Reply, pp. 5:1–6, 6:18, 8:4–5, 9:3–4, 10:20–21.)
B.
The SROGs at Issue
The following are the SROGs at issue:
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
For each vehicle that Starline has
operated on a hop-on, hop-off route in California since January 1, 2019, please
identify the serial number for the engine in each such vehicle.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
For each vehicle that Starline has
operated on a hop-on, hop-off route in California since January 1, 2019, please
identify the Engine Family Name for the engine in each such vehicle.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
For each vehicle that Starline has
operated on a hop-on, hop-off route in California since January 1, 2019, please
describe in detail any steps taken to refurbish, retrofit, or modify the
engines contained in such vehicles, including steps taken prior to January 1,
2019.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
For each vehicle that Starline has
operated on a hop-on, hop-off route in California since January 1, 2019, please
describe in detail any steps taken to reduce or control emissions for such
vehicle(s), including steps taken prior to January 1, 2019.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
For each Particulate Trap, if any,
installed in any vehicle that Starline has operated on a hop-on, hop-off route
in California since January 1, 2019, please identify the serial number for each
such Particulate Trap.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
For each Particulate Trap, if any,
that Starline has replaced on any vehicle that it has operated on a hop-on,
hop-off route in California since January 1, 2019, please state the date on
which such replacement occurred, including if the replacement occurred prior to
January 1, 2019.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
For each Particulate Trap, if any,
that Starline has replaced on any vehicle that it has operated on a hop-on,
hop-off route in California since January 1, 2019, please identify the serial
number for each Particulate Trap that was replaced, including if such
replacement occurred prior to January 1, 2019.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
Please identify all Persons, other
than Starline and its employees, who have serviced, maintained, or repaired any
vehicle that Starline has operated on a hop-on, hop-off route in California
since January 1, 2019.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
For each Person, other than
Starline and its employees, who have serviced, maintained, or repaired any
vehicle that Starline has operated on a hop-on, hop-off route in California
since January 1, 2019, please describe in detail the services, maintenances, or
repairs conducted.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
Please identify all Persons from
whom Starline purchased or leased any vehicle that it has operated on a hop-on,
hop-off route in California since January 1, 2019 (including if such purchase
or lease occurred prior to January 1, 2019) with the corresponding vehicle
license plate number.
The SROGs request information that is relevant to this matter, and they
are sufficiently narrow in scope.
C.
The Timeliness of SROG No. 24
On May 17, 2023, Starline responded to SROG No. 24. (Decl. Weiner, Exh.
B.)
On June 16, 2023, BBTLA noted the inadequacy of the response to SROG No.
24 and requested supplemental responses by June 30, 2023. (Decl. Winer, Exh.
C.)
Thus, contrary to Starline’s argument, the request for a further response
to SROG No. 24 did not expire as of July 3, 2023.
D.
Further Responses to the SROGs
Starline’s responses to the SROGs have been evasive.
Specifically, Starline’s initial responses have been boilerplate
objections, which lack merit.
Further, Starline’s subsequent responses have pointed to various
documents, telling BBTLA to find the information itself within those documents.
That is an insufficient response that does not actually answer the SROGs.
Starline must answer the SROGs itself, even if BBTLA has access to the same
information.
The Court GRANTS the Further SROGs Motion.
III.
Conclusion
The Further SROGs Motion is GRANTED.
Starline shall provide further responses
to the SROGs at issue within 10 days of the issuance of this Order.