Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00310, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CMCV00310    Hearing Date: March 9, 2023    Dept: A

22CMCV00310 Dmitry Sharin, Arty Drey v. Ricardo Bravo, et al.

Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT, RICARDO BRAVO’S, FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

            The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs entered into an oral contract with Defendant, Ricardo Bravo (“Bravo”) to form a partnership to establish a wood pallet building company. Defendant failed to purchase a wood mill and make other contributions as required by the agreement. Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract, common counts, unjust enrichment fraud and unfair business practices.

            Plaintiffs served Form Interrogatories and Requests for Admission on Defendant Bravo, whose responses were vague and incomplete. (Declaration of Niebow, ¶ 4).  After meeting and conferring, Bravo promised to supplement the responses by January 13, 2023. (Declaration of Niebow, ¶ 5).  Bravo did not provide further responses or respond to subsequent efforts to meet and confer. Defendant did not file an opposition.

 A party can move to compel a further response to interrogatories where the party deems an answer to be evasive or incomplete, or an exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted or inadequate, or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a)). The parties are required to meet and confer prior to making the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(b)).  The Court can also compel further responses to requests for admission where the responses are evasive or incomplete and an objection is without merit. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220). Sanctions may also be imposed for making unmeritorious objections or evasive discovery responses, both of which are misuses of the discovery process. Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.

Defendant’s discovery responses do not comply with the Code as Defendant concedes, since defense counsel informed that full responses would be provided. (Niebow Decl, Ex. F). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve within five days further verified, supplemental, and code-compliant responses to Form Interrogatories 15.1, 17.1, and 50.1-50.4 as set forth in Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement.

The Court imposes sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,275 (3 hours x $405/hour and filing fees of $60.00) against Defendant, Ricardo Bravo, and payable to Plaintiff within five days.