Judge: Michael Small, Case: 21STCV31578, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Case Number: 21STCV31578    Hearing Date: October 31, 2023    Dept: 57

This tentative ruling on Verizon's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 10, 13, 16, 19, 25, and 31 was posted on October 30 in advance of the hearing on a separate Verizon discovery motion that was heard on October 30.  The Court is reposting the tentative ruling in advance of the October 31 hearing on this motion, with minor modifications.

Plaintiff Los Angeles Limited Partnership dba Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”), as lessee, and Defendant Calvary Baptist Church of Gardena (“the Church”), as landlord, entered into a written Option and Building and Rooftop Lease Agreement (“Lease”) under which Verizon leased from the Church interior, rooftop and other space (collectively, “the Premises”) at commercial real property located at 15916 Crenshaw Boulevard, Gardena, California (“the Property”).  The purpose of the Lease was to enable Verizon to  construct and operate a wireless communications facility ("the Facility").  The  Lease was subsequently amended; together with the amendments, the Lease will be referred to as the “Lease Agreement.” 

In its complaint against the Church, Verizon alleges that the Church breached the Lease Agreement by denying Verizon access to the Premises, wrongfully evicting Verizon and/or its contractor(s), and preventing and unduly delaying Verizon’s maintenance and/or modification of the Facility.  The Church cross-claimed against Verizon, alleging that Verizon breached the Lease Agreement by failing to maintain the Premises “in a weather tight condition” and causing damage to the Property.

 This case is quite contentious,   Emblematic of the contentiousness is a series of discovery disputes in which the parties have been embroiled.  One of those disputes led Verizon to file a motion to compel the Church to serve further responses to  Verizon's Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 10, 13, 16, 19, 25 and 31 ("the SROG Motion") and for monetary sanctions of $3,100 reflecting the amount of money that Verizon says it incurred in connection with SROG Motion.   After Verizon filed the SROG Motion and shortly before the Church's opposition to it was due, the Church served further responses to all of the Special Interrogatories, except for No. 31.  In light of its receipt of those further responses, Verizon withdrew its request for substantive relief in the SROG motion as to all of the Special Interrogatories except for No. 31.  Verizon maintains, however, that it is entitled to all of the monetary sanctions it requested in the SROG Motion.  

Special Interrogatory No. 31 asks the Church to provide information regarding “each date upon which a ‘rainstorm’ led to ‘water accumulation’ and/or ‘water penetration and leakage’ at the PROPERTY, as alleged in Paragraphs 18, 19, and 20 of the [Church's] CROSS-COMPLAINT.”  The Church objected to Special Interrogatory on that ground that it is "overbroad, oppressive, burdensome, harassing, and lacking in any time limitation nor is it limited to the facts at issue in this action."  Essentially, the Church's objection is  that it did not track, and cannot possibly go back in time and check for,  "every single weather event over the course of its relationship with Verizon."  (Opposition Brief, at p. 2.)   

 In the Court's view, Verizon has the better of the argument in the dispute over Special Interrogatory No. 31.  The information that Verizon seeks is not as broad as the Church claims.   As Verizon articulated in its reply brief, Special Interrogatory No. 31 seeks only “the dates of rainstorms that led to observed water accumulation, penetration, and leakage at the Property, as alleged in the Cross-Complaint and for which [the Church] contends Verizon is responsible.” (Reply at p. 6.)   If the Church cannot identify specific dates of such storms, Verizon is entitled to know that information.  In short, Special Interrogatory No. 31 simply asks the Church to provide information that supports the contention in the Church's cross-complaint that Verizon's actions on the Premises are responsible for the water damage that flowed from rainstorms during the life of the Lease Agreement.   The Church must respond to Special Interrogatory No. 31 within 30 days of the hearing on the SROG Motion.

As for Verizon's request for monetary sanctions, the Church's objection to Special Interrogatory No. 31 was substantially justified, which is the standard for evaluating whether a party's objections to discovery requests can withstand a request for monetary sanctions even if the objection itself is overruled.  The  Court does not, however, discern substantial justification for the Church's initial objections to all of the other Special Interrogatories except for No. 31.  To the Church's credit, it did eventually provide further responses to those Special Interrogatories, which prompted Verizon to withdraw its request for substantive relief as to those Special Interrogatories.  The problem for the Church is that Verizon should not have been required to file the SROG Motion to obtain further responses to the Special Interrogatories other than No. 31.  Accordingly, Verizon is entitled to the attorney's fees it incurred with respect to each of the Special Interrogatories other than No. 31.   There were six Special Interrogatories in total. The fee request of $3,100  reflects $516 per Interrogatory.  Verizon is thus entitled to $2,580 in attorney's fees ($516 x 6 - minus 516 for Special Interrogatory No. 31.)  That amount is payable to Verizon by the Church within 30 days of the hearing on the SROG Motion.