Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case 22STCV15352 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV15352, Date: 2023-01-27 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: 22STCV15352 Hearing Date: January 27, 2023 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion to Seal

Moving Party: Plaintiff Rochelle Sterling

Resp. Party: Defendant Mohammad Fawaz

SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Set One Form Interrogatories [and] for Sanctions

Moving Party: Plaintiff Rochelle Sterling

Resp. Party: Defendant Mohammad Fawaz

Upon its own motion, the Court Hearing on the Motion to Seal is CONTINUED until February 9, 2023.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to FROGs is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED as to FROGs 12.1 through 12.7 and FROGs 16.1 through 16.3. Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED as to FROGs 3.1 through 3.7.

Both Parties’ respective Requests for Sanctions are DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff Rochelle Sterling, as Trustee of the Sterling Family Trust, filed her Complaint against Mohammad M. Fawaz, a.k.a. Mohammad Moet Fawaz, a.k.a. Moet Fawaz.

On December 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed: (1) First Amended Complaint; (2) Motion to Seal; and (3) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Set One Form Interrogatories [and] for Sanctions (“Motion to Compel Further Responses to FROGs”).

Regarding the Motion to Seal, Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Notice of Lodging Records [Video] Conditionally under Seal; and (2) Proposed Order.

Regarding the Motion to Compel Further Responses to FROGs, Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Darren Shield; (2) Declaration of Linda Toutant; (3) Separate Statement; (4) Notice of Lodging Exhibit A; and (5) Proposed Order.

On January 9, 2023, pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulation, the Court issued a Protective Order.

On January 13, 2023, Defendant filed: (1) Opposition to Motion to Seal; and (2) Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to FROGs and Request for Sanctions.

On January 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed: (1) Reply Supporting Motion to Seal; and (2) Reply Supporting Motion to Compel Further Responses to FROGs.

ANALYSIS:

I. Motion to Seal

Upon its own motion, the Court Hearing on the Motion to Seal is CONTINUED until February 9, 2023.

II. Motion to Compel Further Responses to FROGs

A. 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.)

B. Form Interrogatories Propounded

Plaintiff has propounded the following form interrogatories upon Defendant:

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.1:

Are you a corporation? If so, state:

(a) the name stated in the current articles of incorporation;

(b) all other names used by the corporation during the past 10 years and the dates each was used;

(d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business; and

(e) whether you are qualified to do business in California.

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.2:

Are you a partnership? If so, state:

(a) the current partnership name;

(b) all other names used by the partnership during the past 10 years and the dates each was used;

(d) the name and ADDRESS of each general partner; and

(e) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business.

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.3:

Are you a limited liability company? If so, state:

(a) the name stated in the current articles of organization;

(b) all other names used by the company during the past 10 years and the date each was used;

(d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business; and

(e) whether you are qualified to do business in California.

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.4:

Are you a joint venture? If so, state:

(a) the current joint venture name;

(b) all other names used by the joint venture during the past 10 years and the dates each was used;

(d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business.

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.5:

Are you an unincorporated association? If so, state:

(a) the current unincorporated association name;

(b) all other names used by the unincorporated association during the past 10 years and the dates each was used; and

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.6:

Have you done business under a fictitious name during the past 10 years? If so, for each fictitious name state:

(a) the name;

(b) the dates each was used;

(d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business.

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.7:

Within the past five years has any public entity registered or licensed your business? If so, for each license or registration:

(a) identify the license or registration;

(b) state the name of the public entity; and

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.1:

State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual:

(a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT;

(b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT;

(d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034).

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2:

Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state:

(a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed;

(b) the date of the interview; and

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.3:

Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained a written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each statement state:

(a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from whom the statement was obtained;

(b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who obtained the statement;

(d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original statement or a copy.

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.4:

Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any photographs, films, or videotapes depicting any place, object, or individual concerning the INCIDENT or plaintiff’s injuries? If so, state:

(a) the number of photographs or feet of film or videotape;

(b) the places, objects, or persons photographed, filmed, or videotaped;

(d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual taking the photographs, films, or videotapes; and

(e) the name, ADDRESS and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of the photographs, films, or videotapes.

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.5:

Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any diagram, reproduction, or model of any place or thing (except for items developed by expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210-2034.310) concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each item state:

(a) the type (i.e., diagram, reproduction, or model);

(b) the subject matter; and

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.6:

Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the INCIDENT? If so, state:

(a) the name, title, identification number, and employer of the PERSON who made the report;

(b) the date and type of report made;

(d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of the report.

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.7:

Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF inspected the scene of the INCIDENT? If so, for each inspection state:

(a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual making the inspection (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210- 2034.310); and

(b) the date of the inspection.

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.1:

Do you contend that any PERSON, other than you or plaintiff, contributed to the occurrence of the INCIDENT or the injuries or damages claimed by plaintiff? If so, for each PERSON:

(a) state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON;

(b) state all facts upon which you base your contention;

(d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.2:

Do you contend that plaintiff was not injured in the INCIDENT? If so:

(a) state all facts upon which you base your contention;

(b) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and

(c) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.3:

Do you contend that the injuries or the extent of the injuries claimed by plaintiff as disclosed in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not caused by the INCIDENT? If so, for each injury:

(a) identify it;

(b) state all facts upon which you base your contention;

(d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.

C. Discussion

Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Defendant to provide supplemental responses to the aforementioned form interrogatories (“FROGs”). (Motion to Compel Further FROGs, p. 8:8–10.) Plaintiff categorizes the form interrogatories as falling into three areas: (1) Defendant’s businesses (FROGs 3.1 through 3.7); (2) Defendant’s evidence (FROGs 12.1 through 12.7); and (3) Defendant’s contentions (FROGs 16.1 through 16.3). (Id. at pp. 5:3, 6:19, 7:19.)

Defendant opposes the motion, arguing: (1) that Defense Counsel did not have an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter; (2) that the responses to FROGs 3.1 through 3.7 answer the questions asked; (3) that the term “incident” is not sufficiently defined for Defendant to respond to FROGs 12.1 through 12.7 or FROGs 16.1 through 16.3; and (4) that Defendant’s objections to FROGs 16.1 through 16.3 are valid because this is not a personal injury case. (Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to FROGs, pp. 3:3–22, 5:5–13, 5:15–16, 6:20–22, 7:1–7.)

In her Reply, Plaintiff reiterates her arguments and claims that Defendant is intentionally withholding basic discovery. (Reply to Motion to Compel Further Responses to FROGs, p. 4:1.) Plaintiff also argues that Defendant must answer FROGs 16.1 through 16.3 even though they are under the “personal injury” title. (Id. at p. 5:2–5.)

As to FROGs 3.1 through 3.7, the Court finds that Defendant has provided sufficient answers. These FROGs ask yes/no questions such as “Are you a corporation?” These questions are approved by the Judicial Council, and they are intended to be understood by anyone. The term “you” means “you” — not “your agents”, as Plaintiff suggests. (Reply to Motion to Compel Further Responses to FROGs, p. 3:17–19.) Further, the FROG’s are directed to Defendant Mohammad Fawaz; they are not directed to non-parties. If Plaintiff has questions about Defendant’s businesses, she can ask them of Defendant in the form of special interrogatories or of the businesses themselves in the form of subpoenas. At this time, however, Defendant’s answers of “no” to each of these FROGs is a sufficient response.

The situation is different with FROGs 12.1 through 12.7 and FROGs 16.1 through 16.3. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that it does not matter what the title of the FROGs are; the questions must be answered, and an objection based on the title will not suffice. In addition, the Court notes that Plaintiff checked the form definition of “incident” on the FROGs. (Decl. Toutant, Ex. B, Section 4, subsection (a).) This is sufficient for Defendant to respond to. If it was not clear before, Plaintiff clarifies in the motion that the term “incident” means “‘the occurrence alleged in the Complaint’ — including, of course, the theft of money by [Defendant] from the Plaintiff’s safe as captured on video[.]” (Motion to Compel Further Responses to FROGs, p. 7:1–3, emphasis omitted.) Plaintiff is entitled to further discovery responses regarding these FROGs.

The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to FROGs. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion as to FROGs 12.1 through 12.7 and FROGs 16.1 through 16.3. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion as to FROGs 3.1 through 3.7.

D. Sanctions

Both Parties have requested sanctions here. Given that the Court has granted in part and denied in part the motion, the Court does not find that sanctions are appropriate here.

The Court DENIES both Parties’ respective Requests for Sanctions.

E. Conclusion

Both Parties’ respective Requests for Sanctions are DENIED.