Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 22TRCV01468, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV01468, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV01468 Hearing Date: January 29, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿

¿¿¿

HEARING DATE: January 29, 2024¿

¿¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV01468

¿¿¿

CASE NAME: Ronald Guritzky v. Herbert James Henry, Jr., etc., et al.

¿¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Ronald Guritzky

¿¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Herbert James Henry, jr., etc., et al. (No Opposition)

¿¿¿

TRIAL DATE: July 29, 2024

¿¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One

(2) Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant to Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One

(3) Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant to Respond to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

(4) Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant to Respond to Requests for Admission, Set One

(5) Request for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings: (1-3) GRANTED; verified further responses without objections are due by February 23, 2024 as detailed below, and where required responsive document must also be produced and identified with the specific RFP number to which the documents respond as per CCP section 2013.280(a).

(4) Plaintiff appears to have accepted the verified further admission and denials, mooting the Motion to Compel the RFAs.

(5) Request for Sanctions Granted for $5,000

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿

¿¿¿

A. Factual¿¿¿

¿¿¿

On December 12, 2023, Plaintiff, Ronald Guritzky (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant, Herbert J. Henry, Jr., and DOES 1 through 10. On December 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Promissory Note; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Common Counts – Open Book Account; and (4) Common Counts – Account Stated.

On May 22, 2023, Plaintiff propounded on Defendant his first set of discovery requests. On August 7, 2023, Plaintiff notes that Defendant served his responses to Plaintiffs discovery requests. Plaintiff contended that Defendant’s responses were deficient procedurally and substantively, and not Code-compliant. As a result, on August 18, 2023, Plaintiff sent a letter to defendant outlining the deficiencies in his responses. Having no response received by August 28, 2023, nor in response to a follow-up letter, Plaintiff has brought these four motions to compel further responses.

On December 5, 2023, this Court continued the hearing and ordered the parties to meet and confer prior to the next hearing regarding discovery, to see if the scope of the matters in dispute could be narrowed and requiring Plaintiff to submit a status report to the Court detailing the outcome of the meet and confer.

B. Procedural¿¿¿

¿¿

On September 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed his motions to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission, Set One. To date, no opposition briefs have been filed. On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff submitted the Court-ordered status report on the matters remaining in dispute.

¿II. ANALYSIS¿¿

¿¿

A. Motions to Compel Responses

Per Plaintiff’s status report, Plaintiff asserts that the parties had agreed and compromised as to what defendant would be producing:

1. Form Interrogatories. As to the Form Interrogatories, Defendant would provide responses that are code compliant and, if there are any objections, contain only proper objections, as to form interrogatory numbers 2.8, 15.1, 17.1, and 50.2 - 50.6. In the spirit of good faith and compromise in the discovery process, Plaintiff agreed to withdraw his request for a further response to form interrogatory number 50.1.

2. Request for Admissions: As to the Requests for Admissions, Defendant would provide responses that are code compliant and, if there are any objections, contain only proper objections, as to requests for admissions numbers 1-25.

3. Requests for Production; As to the Requests for Production, Defendant would provide responses that are code compliant and, if there are any objections, contain only proper objections, as to requests for production numbers 1-26.

4. Special Interrogatories: As to the Special Interrogatories, Defendant would provide responses that are code compliant and, if there are any objections, contain only proper objections as to special interrogatory numbers 2,3,7,8,9,10,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24 and 25. In the spirit of good faith and compromise in the discovery process, Plaintiff agreed to withdraw his request for further responses to special interrogatory numbers 6,11,15,16 and 27.

Plaintiff also indicates the parties agreed Defendant would provide the responses by a certain date, which was twice moved back but still well before this hearing. By January 16, 2023, per Plaintiff’s status report Defendant emailed further responses to all four of the pending discovery requests but the Requests for Production still lacked a signature. Further, Plaintiff notes that the verified responses produced on January 16, 2023 were different than the responses produced on January 12, 2023. After review of these, Plaintiff notes that there are still issues with the following:

1. Form Interrogatory Response Nos.: 50.3 — 50.6 still contain what Plaintiff contends to be meritless and improper objections and inadequate and/or evasive responses;

2. Request for Production of Documents Response Nos.: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 24, which indicate responsive documents exist, are still non-compliant with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.280(a) as referenced herein above.

3. Special Interrogatory Response Nos.: 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 24, 26 and 27, still contain what Plaintiff contends to be meritless and improper objections and inadequate and/or evasive responses.

Based on the above, this Court analyzes the responses below.

First, with respect to Plaintiff’s observation that the substantive responses changed between one date and another in January of 2024, the Court is only concerned with the verified response, and if the verified responses are different from unverified ones, the Court will ignore the differences. As to the Form interrogatories remining at issue, the Court GRANTS Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatory No. 50.3, and orders Defendant to provide a still further verified answer without objection by February 23, 2024. As to FROGS 50.4-50.6 the Court finds Defendant provided sufficient answers, subject to objections that the Court overrules. Thus, the Court orders the answers to stand and the objections to fall.

For the Motion to Compel further responses to the Requests for Production of Documents, the Court is confused what the reference is to Defendant’s First View of Exhibit A on 12.22.2022 as referencing RFP No. 1 and 2. This confusion will likely require further responses, to be discussed at oral argument. For RFP Nos. 4, 5, 7, 10, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 24, Defendant indicates he will comply in whole or part with the request but does not provide an answer or reference to any documents. A party intending to respond to a category of demanded documents by reference to documents being produced is required to identify, such as by Bates number, or the produced documents themselves “shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” Code of Civil Proc. § 2031.280(a). Accordingly, Defendant’s further responses are not Code compliant. As such, the Court GRANTS the motion as to all of RFPs 4, 5, 7, 10, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 24, ad orders Defendant to provide a further verified written response without objection by February 23, 2024 days AND to produce the requested documents also by that date in accordance with the requirements of Section 2031.280(a). RFPs 1 and 2 may also fall into this same ruling depending on what the parties explain about the “First View.”

Lastly, for the Motion to Compel Responses to the Special Interrogatories, The Court will address each remaining SROG in dispute below. As to SROG No. 11, Defendant’s additional response does not answer the requested question, so the Court GRANTS the motion to compel further response, and the Court Orders Defendant to provide a still further verified answer by February 23, 2024. Special Interrogatory 14 requires further response as the objection is overruled. Special Interrogatories Nos. 15 and 16 are not, in the Court’s view, irrelevant, so the objections to each are also overruled. Next, Special Interrogatory 17 seems sufficiently responded to, even if they are not the responses Plaintiff is looking for. For Special Interrogatories Nos. 22 and 24 the answers given to date are insufficient and require further response as they do not answer the question being asked. For Special Interrogatories Nos. 26 and 27, these again require further responses as the answer given does not answer the question being asked. The Court thus order verified, still further responses to SROGs 11, 14, 15, 16, 22, 24, 26, and 27, without objection, by February 23, 2024.

In addition to the four substantive motions, three of which the Court has granted in whole or in part, Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions to be awarded against Defendant in the amount of $2,682 for the Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs, $1,957.50 for the Motion as to Special Interrogatories, and $1,440 for the motion as to Form Interrogatories. Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is asserted as $345, and the hours spent on each motion appear to be largely reasonable. Because Plaintiff has continuously had to follow up on these motions, because Defendant did not provide any opposition to the motions nor a separate statement, because Defendant originally provided unverified responses and failed to comply with the law regarding the identification of documents produced to correspond to the categories of the RFPs to which they correspond, because two hearing were required in order to obtain partial compliance but still further verified responses are required, the Court finds Defendant has engaged in misuse of the discovery process within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure §2023.010(d), (e), and (f) without substantial justification. Accordingly, the Court awards Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $5,000 as against Defendant, to be paid to counsel for Plaintiff by February 23, 2024.

Plaintiff is ordered to give written notice of the Court’s rulings.

¿¿¿¿

¿¿¿