Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV01385, Date: 2023-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV01385    Hearing Date: November 22, 2023    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

 

HEARING DATE: November 22, 2023 

 

CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV01385 


CASE NAME: Desislava Colova v. Nikolay Ivanov, et al.   

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Desislava Colova, in pro per 


RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Los Angeles Computer Department, LLC (no opposition filed) 

 

TRIAL DATE: Not Set. 


MOTION: (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One 

(2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One 

(3) Request for Monetary Sanctions 

 

Tentative Rulings: (1) The Court orders Defendant to provide a verified further response to special interrogatories 16-21 without objections on or before January 5, 2024.   

(2) The Court orders Defendant to provide a verified further response without objections on or before January 5, 2024 that either admits or denies RFAs no. 6, 7, 11, and 12, or which states Defendant is unable to admit or deny.   

(3)  Monetary Sanctions: The Court needs to know how the $120 per motion figure was determined 

   


I. BACKGROUND 

 

A. Factual 

 

On December 7, 2022, Plaintiff, Desislava Colova (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant, Los Angeles Computer Department, Nikolay Ivanov, and DOES 1 through 50. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Fraud; (2) Breach of Duty of Loyalty; (3) Unfair Business Practices; and (4) Conversion.  

 

Plaintiff notes that on June 5, 2023, she served Nikolay Ivanov with Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Admission, Set One. Plaintiff asserts that the response was due on July 5, 2023. Plaintiff notes that on July 13, 2023, her process server sent the Defendant’s attorney a meet and confer letter requesting Defendant’s response. On that same day, Plaintiff notes Defense attorney requested a copy of the Requests for Admission, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff notes the copies were emailed on July 17, 2023. Plaintiff notes that Defendant’s attorney’s assured her that Defendant would respond by August 15, 2023. Plaintiff notes that Defense counsel requested an extension for Defendant to respond to the propounded discovery until August 30, 2023. On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff notes another extension was requested until September 11, 2023. Plaintiff notes that she was served via mail on September 1, 2023.  

 

However, Plaintiff notes that upon review, she noticed that Defendant Ivanov did not respond to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 14 - 21, nor did he respond to Requests for Admissions Nos. 6, 7, 11, and 12. On September 25, 2023, Plaintiff notes her process server emailed Defense Counsel with a meet and confer letter requesting a complete, verified response by Defendants to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission and Special Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff notes that on September 26, 2023, Defendants’ attorney responded with a substitution of attorney form and forwarded Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter to Defendants’ new counsel Mr. Bernal Peter Ojeda. On October 6, 2023, Plaintiff notes she requested an informal discovery conference. However, Plaintiff contends that Mr. Ojeda has ignored her request.  

 

Based on the above, Plaintiff has brought the two Motion to Compel Further Discovery responses to Special Interrogatories and Requests for Admission.  

 

B. Procedural 


On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed these Motions to Compel Further. To date, no opposition has been filed.  


II. MEET AND CONFER  

 

The Court finds Plaintiff has successfully attempted to meet and confer in good faith.  

 

III. ANALYSIS 

 

  1. Legal Standard  

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) For discovery purposes, information is regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.” (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)¿¿ 

Further, “Any party may obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010, subd. (a).)¿¿ “The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: (1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered[;] (2) An exercise of the party's option to produce writings[;] (3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210, subd. (a).)¿“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate[;] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Further, Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (a), provides that “[o]n receipt of a particular response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise the propounding party waives the right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b).) 

 

"The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.020(a).) Generally, objections on the ground of burden require the objecting party to produce evidence of (a) the propounding party's subjective intent to create burden or (b) the amount of time and effort it would take to respond. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) However, no such evidence is necessary where discovery is obviously overbroad on its face. (See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.) 


  2. Discussion  

Preliminary, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s separate statement for the Special Interrogatories, Set One is somewhat confusing. Plaintiff’s moving papers indicate that Defendant’s responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 14-21 are insufficient. However, the separate statement only lists the questions to Special Interrogatories Nos. 16-21, and includes the response to Interrogatory Nos. 14-21. As such, Plaintiff will be required to provide oral argument as to this discrepancy prior to the Court’s decision.  

 

Plaintiff’s separate statement for Requests for Admission Nos. 6, 7, 11, 12 is more helpful by providing some analysis as to why Plaintiff is requesting such information. Based on the analysis in Plaintiff’s separate statement for Requests for Admission, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Further Responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 6, 7, 11, and 12, and overrules the objections.  The Court orders Defendant to provide a verified further response without objections on or before January 5, 2024 that either admits or denies each of these RFAs no. 6, 7, 11, and 12, or which states Defendant is unable to admit or deny.   

 

After review of Plaintiff’s analysis in the separate statement for Requests for Admission, the Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 16-21 as well. The Court orders Defendant to provide a verified further response to special interrogatories 16-21 without objections on or before January 5, 2024.  However, because Plaintiff’s separate statement does not include the questions for Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 14, the Court denies the motion as to those interrogatories.    

 

  1. Sanctions  

 

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel.(CCP. §§ 

2030.290(c), 2030.300(d), 2031.300(c), and 2031.310(h).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”(Id.)

 

Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to $120 against Defendant Nikolay Ivanov per motion. The Court will discuss how that amount was arrived at, because Plaintiff cannot seek attorney’s fees as she is self-represented but the court costs in filing would be recoverable.