TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 5

Date: 3/24/2023

Case No: 22 GDCV00218 Trial Date: October 16, 2023 

Case Name: Abolian , et al. v. Bloom, et al.  

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Sarmen Abolian and Talin Shahbazian, Trustees 

Responding Party: Defendant Suzanne S. Bloom, Trustee  

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One (Notice)  

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Sarmen Abolian and Talin Shahbazian, a married couple, allege that they are trustees of a family trust, and as trustees own real property on Dunsmere Road in Glendale.  Defendant Suzanne Bloom, as trustee of Bloom Trust, owns property on Linda Vista Road in Glendale, which adjoins plaintiffs’ property. 

The complaint alleges that in April of 2021, plaintiffs received a recorded survey which revealed a series of encroachments over a portion of the Dunsmere Property created by defendants, and plaintiffs recently commissioned a new survey, presenting a more detailed description of such encroachments. 

Plaintiffs allege that a fence was build some time ago by either defendants or their predecessors in interest, which was used by defendants to create a disputed area between the fence and the correct location of the boundary line (the “Disputed Area.”).  Plaintiffs allege that defendants also intentionally have installed a deck which encroaches on the Disputed Area.   The complaint alleges that the encroachments cover an area of approximately 1030 square feet, that plaintiffs have never given their permission to the placement of the fence or deck, or to the use of the Disputed Area, and that defendants have failed to take any remedial action despite having received a copy of the recorded surveys from plaintiffs. 

Defendant has filed a cross-complaint, alleging that that cross-complainant Bloom has maintained possession and control of the Disputed area, which has been hostile, notorious, adverse, and continuous for over 39 years, and seeking to quiet title, establish a prescriptive easement, or establish an equitable easement.  

ANALYSIS:

Procedural

Plaintiffs have filed one motion, which seeks to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.  The motion is accordingly three motions, lumped into one motion.  The motions should have been brought as three motions, with the proper number of reservations for motions of this nature, to avoid calendar congestion and jumping ahead of other discovery motions, and with all separate filing fees paid. 

The court orders the additional filing fees of $60 per motion to be paid for each of the two additional motions to be considered this date. 

Separate Statement 

The opposition argues that the separate statement is improper, as it fails to accurately set out each response to each discovery request, and, in connection with special interrogatories, fails to separately address each special interrogatory. 

The reply appears to concede that there are certain responses in the separate statement which do not verbatim track the discovery responses served, and also that the separate statement as to the special interrogatories addresses all of the special interrogatories at issue together, rather than separately, as required by the Code.  The court also notes that the separate statement refers to contentions in certain paragraphs of the parties’ pleadings without setting forth the substance of those contentions.  

CRC Rule 3.1345(c) requires that a separate statement “must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response.”  The rule requires the statement “must include” for each discovery request to which a further response is requested, the text of the request, in addition to “the text of each response, answer or objection, and any further responses or answers...”  The separate statement must also include: “(6) If the pleadings, other documents in the file, or other items of discovery are relevant to the motion, the party relying on them must summarize each relevant document.”  

  

Here, the court could deny the motion for failure to follow the mandatory provisions concerning separate statements, but the court elects not to do so. 

Plaintiffs in reply seek leave of the court to rely on a separate statement with a “concise outline,” as permitted under a 2020 amendment to CRC Rule 3.1345 (b), which provides, in pertinent part:

“A separate statement is not required under the following circumstances:…

(2) When a court has allowed the moving party to submit—in place of a separate statement—a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.’   

The statute requires that the court has “allowed” the moving party to “submit” a concise outline, which permission would necessarily have to be obtained prior to filing a concise outline in place of a separate statement.  This advance permission was not sought and was not obtained here. 

The court would be within its discretion to deny the motion outright on the ground plaintiff has failed to file an appropriate separate statement. See Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 892-893.

The court has nevertheless exercised its discretion to review the discovery responses themselves, attached to the moving papers, to the court’s great inconvenience.  The court addresses the motion on its merits.  Plaintiffs are cautioned, however, that the court may in the future refuse to consider pleadings and motions not drafted pursuant to the rules, statutes and procedures governing this litigation. 

Meet and Confer 

The opposition argues that plaintiffs failed to meet and confer in good faith prior to filing the motion but were aware that new counsel had recently taken over representation, was not familiar with discovery responses prepared by former counsel, was on medical leave recovering at home in severe pain after having knee replacement surgery, and had granted plaintiffs a 45 day extension of time to bring the motion until January 22, 2023.  Evidently, the parties were also engaged in settlement negotiations. 

Under CCP § 2030.300, a where a party brings a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories such a motion “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

Section 2016.040 requires:

“A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”

A similar provision applies to motions to compel further responses to document demands. CCP§§ 2031.310(b)(2).

The meet and confer letter is thorough and there was a follow up telephonic meet and confer.  [La Mendola Decl., paras. 4, 5, Exs. 7, 8].  The opposition does not point to any issue raised in the motion which was not addressed in the meet and confer letter.  While there is some concern that there appears to be no dispute that an extension of time to file a motion was offered, it appears there was at the time what plaintiffs’ counsel understood as a telephonic refusal to further respond to the discovery.  The circumstances do not render the meet and confer efforts and the filing of the motion to have not been in good faith.   The motion is considered on its merits. 

Substantive

Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  The section specifically provides that “Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery may be obtained “of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”

Interrogatories

CCP § 2030.300(a) provides that if the party propounding interrogatories deems that an objection “is without merit or too general” or that “an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete…the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response...”

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully respond to discovery.  Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.  The granting or denial of a motion to compel is in the discretion of the trial court.  Coy, at 221-222.   A court should generally consider the following factors:

The relationship of the information sought to the issues framed in the pleadings;

The likelihood that disclosure will be of practical benefit to the party seeking discovery;

The burden or expense likely to be encountered by the responding party in furnishing the information sought.

Columbia Broadcast System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.

Form Interrogatories

Form Interrogatories Nos. 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3

Form Interrogatories Nos. 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 seek to discover information concerning any injuries being claimed to have been sustained as a result of the incident for which defendant, as cross-complainant, is claiming damages. 

The responses are some version of objections that the interrogatories are vague, burdensome, overly broad, compound, do not seek discoverable information and are vague as to the term “incident.”  

The motion argues that the interrogatories seek relevant information, as defendant and cross-complainant seeks general damages, which commonly include pain and suffering and emotional distress.

To the extent the cross-complaint seeks such damages, the interrogatories are appropriately propounded on cross-complainant, and the burden shifts to cross-complainant to justify the objections and failure to respond. 

The opposition indicates that the objections were made as the interrogatories do not apply in the context of this litigation, which is not a personal injury action, and wherein the interrogatories are directed to Bloom as a defendant, not a cross-complainant.  The opposition states that Bloom, nevertheless, expects to provide further responses to these interrogatories to clarify that she is not claiming damages for any physical personal injury or pain and suffering.  

The opposition fails to justify any of the objections, and concedes that the responses are incomplete with respect to the claims being pursued in this action.  The motion accordingly is granted, and defendant is ordered to serve further complete responses, without objection, which, if appropriate, clearly indicate that defendant and cross-complainant is not seeking any recovery for personal injuries in this matter.  

Form Interrogatories Nos.  12.1, 12-3–12.7

Form Interrogatory No. 12.1 requests the name, address and telephone numbers of each individual who witnessed the incident, made a statement at the scene, heard a statement at the scene, or that anyone responding party claims has knowledge of the incident. 

Form Interrogatories Nos. 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6 and 12.7 request information concerning written or recorded statements concerning the incident; photographs, films or videotapes; diagrams, reproductions or models; reports concerning the incident; and information concerning any inspection of the scene of the incident.  

The responses are some variations of the same objections above, as well as objections that the interrogatories seek information and documents readily available to plaintiff or from other parties, and request information formally or informally previously provided, which will not be reproduced.  The responses then state that without waiving objections, investigation and discovery is ongoing and incomplete, and responding party reserves the right to supplement the response.  

The response to Form Interrogatory No. 12.1 then states, “a. Video was taken of Plaintiff’s crew cutting trees. B. Possible individuals who witnessed the cutting of trees are Eva Bloom, Laura Bloom, Suzanne Bloom, S. Abolian.”

The responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 12.3 through 12.7 state, “See prior responses.”   

Under CCP section 2030.210(a), the response shall be separate as to each interrogatory and must contain the information sought to be discovered. Under CCP section 2030.220(a), “each answer in a response shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.”   Subdivision (b) provides, “if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.”  Under subdivision (c), where a party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to answer a question, the party “shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”

As noted above, the statute provides for an objection that the information is “equally available” to the propounding party, but such an objection usually applies when a propounding party seeks to force another party to search public records equally available to both.   See Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45, 53.  That is not the case here. 

Here, the form interrogatories are straightforward, and the responses are incomplete and refer to other discovery responses, and information previously provided to propounding informally.  Plaintiffs are entitled to formal responses, and it is improper to refer to other sources of information or responses to other interrogatories.  See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978, 2nd Dist..) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783-784 (“it is not proper to answer [an interrogatory] by stating ‘See my deposition,’ ‘See my pleading,’ or ‘See the financial statement.’”)

The responses also fail to respond to each subpart of each interrogatory and fail to provide the required contact information for the witnesses who are identified.  

Such a response is improper, and it is noted by the Second District in Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242,  “One glance at the form interrogatories approved by the Judicial Council, particularly the interrogatories in the 12.0 series, demonstrates how fundamentally routine the discovery of witness contact information is.”   Puerto, at 1250. 

The responses are also improperly evasive by indicating that discovery is ongoing.  

With respect to the objections, the burden has shifted to responding party to justify them.  The opposition makes no attempt to do so, but indicates that Bloom expects to provide further responses to these interrogatories to expand the responses, include the broader definition of INCIDENT, clarify the responses, and omit references to other special interrogatory responses.   

Further complete responses, without objections, are ordered to be served. 

Special Interrogatories Nos 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25 and 28

The subject interrogatories ask for statements of the factual basis for Bloom’s allegations set forth in paragraphs 5, 6, 8 and 16 of the cross-complaint, and the factual basis for each of Bloom’s causes of action in the cross-complaint. 

For example, Special Interrogatory No. 1 asks, “Describe in detail the factual basis for your allegations in paragraph 5 of the CROSS-COMPLAINT.”  

The responses are objections that the interrogatories are vague, unduly burdensome, overbroad, do not seek discoverable material, and are compound and asked and answered.  The responses then state that investigation and discovery is ongoing and incomplete, and reserve the right to supplement responses.  Without waiving the objections, defendant sets forth what appears to be the same narrative concerning the placement of the wrought iron fence prior to plaintiff and cross-defendant’s purchase of the adjoining property. 

 The motion argues that the objections are boilerplate, and the responses evasive, and the copying and pasting of the same generic answer is improper, as the answer is unresponsive to the question asked, and includes legal conclusions rather than facts.  Plaintiffs point out that the interrogatories are sufficiently direct and seek directly relevant information, seeking the factual basis for contentions that cross-defendant herself has raised in this action. 

CCP § 2030 .010(a) specifically permits the propounding of contention interrogatories:

“An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based.   An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or a contention that relates to fact or the application of law to facts, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation.” 

Plaintiffs are entitled to the information as to each interrogatory in narrative form, directed to each interrogatory, at this time.  

Defendant in opposition does not justify the objections.  The opposition argues that the responses provided were “long,” even through the interrogatories are broad sweeping contention interrogatories covering a 37 year span and necessarily contain subparts.  There is no indication of any particular special interrogatory which contains subparts or is compound, so such an objection is not justified.  The opposition also indicates that responses to the Special Interrogatories, “will be reviewed for accuracy and for compliance, non-compliance or inability to comply, based on the additional production of documents and newly learned information.”  [Opposition, p. 14:23-25].  

Further complete responses, without objection, are ordered to be served. 

Document Requests

CCP § 2031.310 provides that a party demanding a document inspection may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that:

“(1)   A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

  (2)   A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

  (3)   An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”  

Under CCP § 2031.310 (b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”  

The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery.   Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997, 2nd Dist.) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.   Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure.   See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996, 2nd Dist.) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.

Requests Nos.1-14, 17, 19-23

Requests Nos. 1-7 seek documents that support, refute or otherwise relate to each of the cross-claims (causes of action of cross-complaint), that reflect, refer or relate to instances in which defendant used or accessed or encroached upon the encroached area.

Requests Nos. 8-14 seek title reports and records relating to the Bloom property, documents relating to Bloom’s ownership of the Bloom property, documents relating to any prior owner of the Bloom property, and communications with the prior owner of the Abolian property pertaining to the deck, the fence, and location of the boundary lines between the properties.   

Request No. 17 seeks communications between defendant and plaintiffs regarding ownership of the trees referred to in paragraph 16 of the cross-complaint.  

Requests Nos. 19, 20, and 21 seek documents reflecting, referring to or relating to responding party’s damages as alleged in the cross-complaint; and insurance policies and home insurance policies relating to the Bloom property. 

Requests Nos. 22 and 23, seek communications between defendant and the City of Glendale concerning objections to permits issued for removal of the tree defendant claims defendant owned, and documents provided to the City in support of the claim to own the tree, 

The responses are a serious of boilerplace objections, including that the requests are vague, unduly burdensome, overbroad, do not seek discoverable material, and are compound and call for speculation.   The responses then state that investigation and discovery is ongoing and incomplete, and reserve the right to supplement responses, and object to the extent documents are more accessible to plaintiffs from plaintiffs’ own files. The responses indicate that information previously produced or provided through answers to interrogatories will not be reproduced, and that “Responding Party produces documents pages 1-28, 31-32.” 

The opposition indicates that the requests seek information that is obviously relevant, in effect, those supporting cross-complainant’s claims that cross-complainant has established a prescriptive easement over a portion of plaintiff’s property, those supporting the damages claimed, and those related to the subject property and the tree which it is claimed was improperly removed.  The requests appear appropriate, and good cause for production has been established, shifting the burden to responding party to justify any objections or failure to fully respond.  

The motion also argues that the few documents produced are not responsive to the requests, unintelligible, consist partly of black and white photos which are difficult to decipher, and that no documents were produced evidencing Bloom’s purported hostile, open, notorious, and continuous use of the disputed area.  

As an initial matter, the responses are not Code-compliant.  

Under CCP section 2031.210, a response shall either be a statement of compliance, a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply, or an objection. 

The responses appear to be intended to serve as statements of compliance.  With respect to a statement of compliance, CCP section 2031.220 requires:

“A statement that a party to whom an inspection demand has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, and related activity demanded will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being make will be included in the production.”

This requirement was not done here, and further Code-compliant responses will be ordered to be served. 

The opposition again fails to attempt to justify any objections, instead indicating that Bloom will produce color copies of the black and white photos, a copy of the tree video, deeds in the chain of title, and homeowner’s insurance information.  The opposition also argues that there are not many additional documents to produce, as Bloom purchased her property 37 years ago, and the building of the fence and improvements occurred 35 to 36 years ago, with many documents likely lost or destroyed long ago.   The opposition also indicates that additionally, “responses to the Requests for Production of Documents…will be reviewed for accuracy and for compliance, non-compliance or inability to comply, based on the additional production of documents and newly learned information.” 

The opposition indicates that further documents are attached.  The Thompson Declaration attaches documents and promises to produce even further documents.  [Thompson Decl., para. 3, Exs. F, G].  As pointed out in the reply, this production is not a proper supplemental or further responses to the document requests, as the exhibits consist entirely of purported documents. There is no further pleading indicating to which requests the documents respond, no statements of compliance confirming that these documents are all the responsive documents, and no verifications.  To the extent there appears to be an argument that responsive documents will not be produced because they have been lost over the years, plaintiffs are entitled to a Code-compliant statement of inability to comply.

With respect to a statement of inability to comply, CCP section 2031.230 requires:

“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonably inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand.   This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.   The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”

The responses, as well as the documents purportedly produced with the opposition, are improper, and plaintiffs/cross-defendants are entitled to further complete Code-compliant responses.

The motion accordingly ix granted, and objections are overruled.   

Sanctions 

This leaves the issue of monetary sanctions, which are sought by both sides.  

CCP § 2030.300 (d) provides that the court “shall impose a monetary sanction...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.”   A similar provision applies to motions to compel further responses to document demands.  CCP § 2031.310 (h).   

  Here, while defendant/cross-complainant unsuccessfully has opposed the motion, as pointed out in the opposition, plaintiffs have failed to provide appropriate notice concerning seeking monetary sanctions. 

CCP § 2023.040 provides, in pertinent part:

“A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought and specify the type of sanction sought.”

(Emphasis added). 

The notice of motion here does not mention sanctions, does not identify every person, party and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and does not specify the type of sanction sought. 

Plaintiffs in reply argues that the caption of the motion seeks sanctions.  The notice of motion caption does include the word “request for sanctions.”   However, no such request is in the notice itself, and the caption in any case does not identify against whom sanctions are sought, and does not specify the type of sanction sought.  Plaintiffs in the reply also argue that sanctions are sought in the memorandum, at page 12.  This is a separate document from the Notice, and the statute requires that notice be given in the notice of motion.  The request for sanctions accordingly is denied. 

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions for the expense of opposing the motion, arguing that plaintiffs failed to appropriately meet and confer.  As discussed above, however, this court will not find that the meet and confer here was insufficient, so defendant’s request for monetary sanctions also is denied.   

RULING:

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Suzanne S. Bloom’s Further Responses to and Compliance with Plaintiff’s Special and Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests Production of Documents:

The Motion Reservation was for one motion:  a single motion to compel further responses to discovery.  Contrary to this reservation, plaintiffs have  combined three motions into one (1) a motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories—General (Set No One), (2) a motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and (3) a motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. 

Three separate hearing dates should have been reserved for these three motions to compel further responses to discovery.  In the future, plaintiffs are ordered to obtain separate hearing reservations and pay separate filing fees. Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect. The Court will proceed to consider all three motions this date, as qualified below.

The Court also notes it has considered the motion despite moving party’s failure to submit an appropriate separate statement.  Plaintiffs are cautioned that in the future, the Court may refuse to consider pleadings which are not filed in conformity with the statutes, rules and procedures governing this litigation. 

Motion is GRANTED.

Defendant and Cross-defendant Suzanne S. Bloom, trustee of the Suzanne S. Bloom Trust, is ordered to serve further verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Interrogatories Nos.10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 12.1 and 12.3-12.7, without objection.  The further responses must provide all information requested and respond to all subparts.  All further responses are to fully comply with the requirements under the Discovery Act, including, under CCP § 2030.210 (a)(1) answers “containing the information sought to be discovered.”  The responding party must also comply fully with CCP § 2030.220:

“(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.

(c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”

The Court does not find acceptable a response to discovery which states that investigation and discovery is ongoing and incomplete, or in which a party reserves the right to supplement a response at a later date and does not find acceptable a response which refers to other discovery responses or information previously provided informally or formally. The Court does not find acceptable a response which states, “See prior responses.”  Plaintiffs are entitled to a full and complete response to each interrogatory and its subparts, and a refusal to re-produce information is improper.  The Court also does not find that the response that information is equally available to the propounding party appropriate in the circumstances.  Further responses are to be without objection, as defendant/cross-complainant has failed to justify objections, and the Court has reviewed the objections and find they are without merit.   Objections are accordingly OVERRULED.   To the extent responding party represents in the opposition that responding party is not seeking personal injury damages, pain and suffering, or emotional distress damages in connection with the 10 series of Form Interrogatories, the responses to those interrogatories must clearly so state. 

Defendant and Cross-defendant Suzanne S. Bloom, trustee of the Suzanne S. Bloom Trust, is ordered to serve further verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Interrogatories Nos. 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25 and 28, without objection.  The further responses must provide all information requested.  All further responses are to fully comply with the requirements under the Discovery Act, including, under CCP § 2030.210 (a)(1) answers “containing the information sought to be discovered.”  The responding party must also comply fully with CCP § 2030.220:

“(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.

(c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”

Each response shall directly respond to the interrogatory propounded, and not by reference to a global narrative response claimed to be responsive to all of the subject interrogatories.  The facts applicable to each interrogatory must be set forth.  

The Court does not find acceptable a response to discovery which states that investigation and discovery is ongoing and incomplete, or in which a party reserves the right to supplement a response at a later date, and does not find acceptable a response which refers to other discovery responses or information previously provided informally or formally.  Plaintiffs are entitled to a full and complete response to each interrogatory, and a refusal to re-produce information is improper.  Further responses are to be without objection, as defendant/cross-complainant has failed to justify objections, and the Court has reviewed the objections and find they are without merit.   Objections are accordingly OVERRULED.   

Plaintiff Defendant and Cross-defendant Suzanne S. Bloom, trustee of the Suzanne S. Bloom Trust, is ordered to serve verified further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Requests Nos. 1-14, 17, and 19-23, without objection, and to permit inspection and copying of all responsive documents within ten days.   The further responses must fully comply with CCP §§  2031.210, 2031.220 and 2031.230, including for each request either 1) a statement that responding party will comply with the particular demand, including a statement that the production, inspection, and related activity demanded will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of plaintiff and to which no objection is being make will be included in the production, or 2) a statement of inability to comply, which statement shall specify whether any inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party, and which sets forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.  To the extent some documents may be produced, but others are unavailable, both a statement of compliance and a statement of inability to comply with conform to the Code must be made.  Further responses are to be without objection, as responding party has failed to justify objections, and the Court finds the objections asserted to be without merit. Objections are accordingly OVERRULED.   The documents attached to the opposition as Exhibits F and G are insufficient as further responses, as they are not accompanied by a verified statement of compliance, as discussed above.  

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party are DENIED. 

The notice of motion fails to comply with CCP § 2023.040, as it does not identify every person, party, or attorney against whom a sanction is sought or clearly specify the type of sanction sought.  

Monetary sanctions requested in the opposition are DENIED. 

The Court notes it has exercised its discretion to hear three motions, but this order will not become effective until moving parties pay an additional $120 in filing fees.

GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO ADHERE TO HEALTH GUIDANCE THAT DICTATES SAFETY MEASURES, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams offers free audio and video appearance. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear.  With respect to the wearing of face masks, Department D recognizes that currently, the Los Angeles Department of Public Health strongly recommends masks indoors, especially when interacting with individuals whose vaccination status is unknown; for individuals who have a health condition that puts them at higher risk for severe illness; individuals who live with someone who is at higher risk; and for individuals who are around children who are not yet eligible for vaccines.  In accordance with this guidance, it is strongly recommended that anyone personally appearing in Department D wear a face mask.  The Department D Judge and court staff will continue to wear face masks.  If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.