Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2017-00017395-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 30, 2023

09/01/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other Real Property Discovery Hearing 37-2017-00017395-CU-OR-CTL BARZAL & SCOTTI REAL ESTATE VS. SYLVANIA LP [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: JUDGMENT CREDITOR ACRE INVESTMENT REAL ESTATE SERVICES'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR'S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS is GRANTED, in part.

Judgment Creditor ACRE INVESTMENT REAL ESTATE SERVICES ('Judgment Creditor') seeks further responses from Judgment Debtor SYLVANIA, L.P. ('Judgment Debtor'). A motion to compel further responses 'shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(b)(1).) '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.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) '[T]he statute requires that there be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.' (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1438.) Judgment Debtor assert Judgment Creditor's meet and confer effort was insufficient as to some of this motion. Judgment Creditor sent one email prior to filing this motion. The email meet and confer did not mention Judgment Debtor's objections as to the requests being compound. The Court agrees the meet and confer effort was insufficient as it did not address 'each issue presented by the motion.' (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2016.040.) However, the email was otherwise satisfactory as to the other objections.

'While the party propounding interrogatories may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.' (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.) CCP section 2030.060 provides, in relevant part, that: ...

(c) Each interrogatory in a set shall be separately set forth and identified by number or letter.

(d) Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included with a set of interrogatories unless it has been approved under Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 2033.710).

(e) Any term specially defined in a set of interrogatories shall be typed with all letters capitalized wherever that term appears.

(f) No specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2982648  40 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  BARZAL & SCOTTI REAL ESTATE VS. SYLVANIA LP [IMAGED]  37-2017-00017395-CU-OR-CTL Judgment Creditor assert the compound objections are without merit because even accounting for the increase in total number of subparts the total number of requests would not exceed 35 interrogatories.

Under CCP section 2030.030 a party may propound up to 35 interrogatories without providing a 'declaration as described in Section 2030.050.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.030.) While Judgment Creditor may be correct about the total number of interrogatories not exceeding 35, Judgment Creditor fails to explain how compliance with CCP section 2030.030 is tantamount to compliance with CCP section 2030.060. The Court does not believe compliance with CCP section 2030.030 absolves Judgment Creditor of its obligation to comply with CCP section 2030.060. Answering a compound question can create confusion, regardless of how many total questions are asked.

Judgment Debtor has properly justified its compound objections. Therefore, the motion is denied as to those interrogatories where such objection was made. However, as to interrogatory number 2 (tax identification number) there was no compound objection, and the Court fails to see any reason the interrogatory should not be answered. Judgment Debtor is ordered to provide a further response to interrogatory number 2 within seven (7) calendar days. The motion is otherwise denied. No sanctions are awarded. The Court notes that it would be extremely inclined to award sanctions against Judgment Debtor if Judgment Creditor is forced to file another motion after properly meeting and conferring as Judgment Debtor has failed to provide any substantive responses.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2982648  40