Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 20CHCV00279, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20CHCV00279    Hearing Date: October 20, 2022    Dept: F51

Dept. F-51

Date: 10-20-22                                                                                                Trial Date: 5/01/2023

Case #  20CHCV00279

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF FELIPE BARRERA TO PROVIDE FURTHER ANSWERS TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Motion filed on 8/17/22.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Prestigious Realty, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Felipe Barrera

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED:

An order compelling Plaintiff to provide further answers to each and every one of the Amended Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1; for reimbursement of Defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs in the sum of $3,902.57; and such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.

RULING:        DENIED.

This action concerns the real property commonly known as 9892 Mercedes Avenue, Arleta, CA 92331 (“Subject Property”) that Plaintiff and Defendant Natividad Celaya’s parents, Lydia and Jesus Barrera purchased. (Compl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff claims that Lydia Barerra left the Subject Property to Jesus Barrera and then equally to all of her children. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant Celaya listed the Subject Property for sale to which Plaintiff protested. (Compl. ¶ 15.) Defendant Celaya sold the Subject Property without Plaintiff’s written authority and retained the sale proceeds for her own use and refuses to turn over any of the funds to Plaintiff or any of her other siblings. (Compl. ¶ 16.)

On 5/5/20, Plaintiff filed this action against Natividad Celaya fka Natividad Barrera; Monica Jimenez; Boulevard Escrow Services, Inc.; Prestigious Realty, Inc.; and Jazmin Elieth Arias for (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (2) Constructive Fraud; (3) Breach of Contract; (4) Resulting Trust; (5) Constructive Trust; (6) Quiet Title; (7) Conversion; (8) Conspiracy; (9) Intentional Interference with Contract; (10) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (11) Accounting; and (12) Declaratory Relief.

On 9/3/21, Defendant served Special Interrogatories on Plaintiff. (Bessada Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) On 6/24/22, the Court ordered that Plaintiff’s responses which were included in his opposition to Defendant’s motion to compel (not further), Plaintiff’s responses were deemed served the day of the hearing. (Bessada Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. B.) On 7/11/22, Defendant wrote a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff to discuss his response which Defendant deemed deficient as it was evasive and non-responsive. (Bessada Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. C.) Plaintiff served supplemental responses on 7/20/22 which was almost verbatim identical to the Responses served on 6/24/22. (Bessada Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. E.) Plaintiff sent another meet and confer letter to discuss the deficiencies on 8/2/22. (Bessada Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s correspondence. (Id.) On 8/17/22, Defendant filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further answers to each and every one of the Amended Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s issue is that he has “over-answered” in his responses, but Plaintiff claims he was providing the fullest and best code-complaint responses which included numerous factual details. (Oppo. p. 3.) Plaintiff claims it is unclear how he could provide more information and that it appears Defendant wants less. (Id.)

Defendant has not provided a reply.

The requests ask Plaintiff to state all facts, grounds, and evidence which supports Plaintiff’s claims and contentions concerning various topics relating to Plaintiff’s case.

The Court finds that Defendant’s special interrogatories are broad and not limited in scope. Defendant complains that Plaintiff’s responses are “no more than a very lengthy re-hash of his allegations, requiring counsel for the propounding party to spend an inordinate time for review in search of answers buried in all the cut and paste verbiage like Easter eggs.” (Mot. p. 7.) However, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s responses are not deficient given that Defendant’s requests were broad.

In light of the foregoing, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

Accordingly, Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are rendered MOOT.