Judge: Michael Small, Case: 23STCV08668, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling
Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.
Case Number: 23STCV08668 Hearing Date: February 25, 2025 Dept: 57
PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTEROGATTORIES SET ONE "FROGs").
Defendant Bencivenga GRANTED as to FROG Nos. 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.11, 2.12., 4.1, 4.2, 14.1, 15.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, and 50.6. DENIED as to FROG Nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.6, and 14.2. Plaintiff's monetary sanctions request of $6,500. reflects ten hours of counsel's work. There are redundancies, however, between this motion and the motion to compel Jarvis to respond to the FROGs. In light of that fact, the Court is reducing the request in the Bencivenga motion in half to $3,250.00.
Defendant Jarvis GRANTED as to Form Interrogatories Nos. 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.11, 2.12., 4.1, 4.2, 14.1, 15.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, and 50.6. DENIED as to FROG Nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.6, and 14.2. Sanctions award is $3,250.00.
Defendant Peters
This really should have been a motion to compel responses, not further responses, because Peters did not respond at all.
In any event, the motion is granted in full. The Plaintiff's monetary sanctions request was based on six hours of work by Plaintiff's counsel, including four hours on an opposition. However, Peters filed a statement of "non-opposition," which was about fees. The Court will award Plaintiff two hours of its counsel's time for reviewing the non-opposition. The sanctions award as to this motion is $2,600
PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ("RFPs")
As to Peters, the Plaintiff improperly combined two motions into one, in that Plaintiff is seeking to compel further responses to RFPs Set One and Set Two. This should have been two separate motions. Peters did not respond at all to RFP Set One. He did respond to RFP Set Two. Under the circumstances, the Court will not require Plaintiff to file a new motion as to Set One. The Court is granting the motion in full as to Set One. The Set Two RFPs as to Peters are the same as the Set One RFPs as to Jarvis and Bencivenga. The Court has concerns about the temporal scope of RPF Nos.
13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24, 25, and 26. The Court will discuss those concerns at the hearing. Otherwise, the three motions are granted as to the other RFPs. The Court will address the monetary sanctions requests in the three motions at the hearing.
