Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 21STCV06841, Date: 2022-09-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV06841 Hearing Date: September 26, 2022 Dept: 74
21STCV06841 AMERICAN
GLOBAL FACILITY vs DIVINE FOOD & CATERING, LLC
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form
Interrogatories (Set 2) and for Monetary Sanctions
TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant’s
Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set 2) and for Monetary
Sanctions is GRANTED in part.
The motion is DENIED as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1(b)
related to Requests for Admission Nos. 14-15, 20-21, and 23-27.
The motion is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1(d)
related to Requests for Admission Nos. 1-18, 20, and 22-28.
Plaintiff is ordered to provide further verified,
code-compliant responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1(d) related to Requests
for Admission Nos. 1-18, 20, and 22-28 within 20 days.
Background
On February
22, 2021, Plaintiff American Global Facility filed this action against
Defendant Divine Food & Catering, LLC seeking to recover $54,094.50 for unpaid
goods or services provided.
On May 13, 2021, the Court
entered the parties’ stipulation to set aside Defendant’s default entered on April
26, 2021.
Motion
On August 29,
2022, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel further responses from
Plaintiff American Global Facility to Form Interrogatories (Set Two), Form Interrogatory
No. 17.1(b) as to Requests for Admission Nos. 14-15,
20-21, and 23-27 and Form Interrogatory No. 17.1(d) as to Requests for
Admission Nos. 1-18 and 20-28.
The
motion was properly served and is unopposed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(c).)
Motion to Compel Further Responses
Standard
The
propounding party may bring a motion to compel further responses to
interrogatories if it believes the responses received are evasive or
incomplete, the attempt to produce writings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 2030.230 is unwarranted or inadequate, or if the objections raised are
meritless or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a).) The motion must be
accompanied by a good-faith meet and confer declaration, (Code Civ. Proc. §
2016.040), and be accompanied by a separate statement. (Cal. R. Ct., rule
3.1345.) The opposing party bears the burden of justifying any objections. (Fairmont
Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255; Kirkland v.
Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 97-98.)
Unless
extended, the motion must be filed within 45 days of service of the responses.
(Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2016.050; 2030.300(c); Sexton v. Superior Court
(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 (“the time within which to make a motion to
compel . . . is mandatory and jurisdictional.”).)
Background of Discovery and Meet and
Confer
On June 9, 2022, Defendant served Requests for
Admission (Set 1) and Form Interrogatories (Set 2) upon Plaintiff. (Tabibkhoei Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1-3.) After
the parties agreed to an extension, Plaintiff provided responses on July 26,
2022. (Id. ¶¶ 5-8, Ex. 5, 6.) Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter
outlining the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory No.
17.1. (Id. ¶ 11, Ex. 8.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to the meet and
confer letter and did not provide supplemental responses. (Id. ¶ 12.)
Defendant requests the Court compel Plaintiff to
provide further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1(b) related to Requests
for Admission Nos. 14-15, 20-21, and 23-27 and
Form Interrogatory No. 17.1(d) related to Requests for Admission Nos. 1-18 and
20-28
Plaintiff Must Provide Further
Responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1(d) Related to Requests
for Admission Nos. 1-18 and 20, 22-28
As argued by Defendant, Form Interrogatory No. 17.1(d)
requests the Plaintiff identify all documents that support the response to each
request for admission at issue. Plaintiff’s responses related to Requests for
Admission Nos. 1-18 and 20, 22-28 impermissibly identify documents in broad
categories such as “invoices” and “payroll documents” or with generic descriptions
such as “demand letter” and “Custom Detail Transaction Report.”
Plaintiff must provide further detail to adequately identify these documents,
such as BATES numbers if they have been produced, dates, authors, or other
information to specifically identify the documents relied upon. (See Hernandez
v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 293 (“If an interrogatory
asks the responding party to identify a document, an adequate response must
include a description of the document.”); Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84
Cal.App.3d 771, 784 (“A broad statement that the information is available from
a mass of documents is insufficient.”).)
While
Defendant contends Plaintiff failed to adequately identify the “price
proposal,” the Court notes the document is identified elsewhere with sufficient
detail. (Tabibkhoei Decl. Ex. 5 at 6:4-8 (“On February 13, 2018 Plaintiff and
Defendant entered into a Price Proposal Agreement where plaintiff agreed to
provide janitorial services at 1201 Vine Street, Los Angeles CA 90038, 3-4 Janitors, 4 times a week (with a subject
to change provision) at $19.00/hour.”).)
Plaintiff
did not identify any documents in response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1(d)
related to Request for Admission No. 21 as it responded: “[a]fter a diligent
search and reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff does not have any responsive documents
within their possession, custody or control responsive to this request.” There
is nothing further for the Court to compel related to Request for Admission No.
21.
Accordingly,
the motion is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1(d) related to Requests
for Admission Nos. 1-18 and 20, 22-28 and DENIED as to Request for Admission
No. 21.
Plaintiff’s Responses were Sufficient
as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1(b) related
to Requests for Admission Nos. 14-15, 20-21, and 23-27
Defendant
notes Requests for Admission Nos. 14 and 15 sought admissions regarding an open
book account and Plaintiff “responded that the ‘Price Proposal Agreement’
between Plaintiff and Divine Catering ‘allowed for the creation of the book
account” and that Plaintiff “maintained a book account for the transactions
that arose from the agreement.’” (Mot. at 2:26-3:7.) Defendant contends “there
is no document entitled Price Proposal Agreement. Rather, the document
Plaintiff is referring to is entitled ‘Price Proposal,’ which shows it is not
an agreement to create or maintain a book account. It does not even mention a
book account.” (Id. at 3:4-7.) Defendant makes a similar argument as to
Requests for Admission Nos. 26 and 27 that sought admissions related to
agreements and promises to pay $54,094.50. (Id. at 4:13-21.) Defendant’s motion
as to Requests for Admission Nos. 24 and 25 argues a further response is
required because Plaintiff’s substantive response is false. (Id. at 6:4-16.)
However,
Defendant’s disagreement with a response or its contention that a response is
false or inaccurate are not proper grounds to compel further responses. (Code
Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a); Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 316,
333 (noting false responses are not expressly covered by the Discovery Act); Holguin v. Superior Court (1972) 22
Cal.App.3d 812, 821 (stating incorrect or contradictory responses make a party
subject to impeachment, but do not entitle a party to different answers).)
For
the same reason, Plaintiff’s responses to subsection (b) as to Request for
Admissions Nos. 20, 21, and 23 are sufficient. Plaintiff provided a substantive
response as to each of these requests for admission. Defendant’s contention
that more information is required, such as “the names, addresses or phone
numbers” of employees and persons who prepared billing statements or “the
payment dates, payment amounts, or to whom the payments were made and for which
dates and hours Plaintiff contends services were provided to Defendant,” is the
proper subject of separate discovery requests directed to that information.
There is nothing further for the Court to compel as to Form Interrogatory No.
17.1(b) in relation to Requests for Admission Nos. 20, 21, and 23.
The
motion is DENIED as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1(b) as to Requests for Admission Nos. 14-15,
20-21, and 23-27.
Sanctions Are Not Warranted
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
2030.300(d), “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing
with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who
unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to
interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted
with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition
of the sanction unjust.”
Defendant sought sanctions against Plaintiff, but
not its counsel, in the amount of $2,200.00 consisting of 3.5 hours of attorney
time (3.0 hours by Farah Tabibkhoei and .5 hours by lead
trial counsel, Susan C. Yu). (Tabibkhoei
Decl. ¶ 13.)
The
Court finds the imposition of sanctions would be unjust as the Court has only
partially granted Defendant’s motion.