Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV00183, Date: 2024-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV00183, Date: 2024-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV00183 Hearing Date: November 1, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: November 1, 2024

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV00183

CASE NAME: Travis Graham v. Florence W Kelley, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Florence W. Kelley

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Travis Graham (Attorney Declaration Opposition)

TRIAL DATE: February 24, 2025

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

(2) Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One

(3) Requests for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings: (1), (2), and (3) CONTINUED to December 3, 2024, the same date and time as the hearing on the motion by Plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On January 20, 2023, Plaintiff, Katelyn Dow Stepanyan (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant, Florence W. Kelley, Eddie Suber, and DOES 1 through 100. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Violation of California Civil Code §1942.4; (2) Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability; (3) Private Nuisance; (4) Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; (5) Negligence; (6) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (8) Negligence Per Se; (9) Violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act – California Civil Code § 1750, et seq.; and (10) Disgorgement of Fees Paid for Unlicensed Contractor Services.

On July 8, 2024, Defendant, Florence W. Kelley asserts that she propounded written discovery on Plaintiff in the form of Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Admission, Set One. Defendant Kelley contends that responses were due by August 8, 2024. Kelley argues that Plaintiff did not request an extension to provide responses, and instead, on August 8, 2024, served blanket objections to all written discovery served. Further, Defendant Kelley states that Plaintiff has failed to provide any substantive responses. As such, Defendant Kelley has filed these Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.

B. Procedural

On September 23, 2024, Defendant Kelley filed these Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. On October 8, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel, Jacob O. Partiyeli filed a declaration in opposition to the discovery motions indicating he has a pending motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 41.)

“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.)

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents (“RFP”) may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive, or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) In Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court defined “good cause” as a showing that there “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.” If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) ¿

"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.)

B. Discussion

Preliminarily, this court notes that in lieu of a tradition opposition brief, Plaintiff’s counsel, Jacob O. Partiyeli filed a declaration (“Partiyeli Decl.”) requesting this court continue the hearing of these motions. (Partiyeli Decl., ¶ 2.) Partiyeli notes that he has filed a motion to be relieved as counsel due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with his obligations under the California Discovery Act and other issues, which he notes will not be disclosed because of the attorney-client privilege. (Partiyeli Decl., ¶ 2.) Furthermore, Partiyeli has attested that he has had no wrongdoing in attempting to fulfill his obligations under the California Discovery Act, and asks this court pardon the violations in the motions to compel further named against him. (Partiyeli Decl., ¶ 3.) Lastly, Partiyeli asserts that he prepared objections to the discovery queries in an effort to protect his client from the waiver of objections and hopes that the court can see his good faith in the discovery issues. (Partiyeli Decl., ¶ 4.) As such, Partiyeli has requested this court postpone the hearing on the discovery motions until he is relieved as counsel. (Partiyeli Decl., ¶ 2.)

This court notes that it finds good cause to postpone the hearing on Defendant Kelley’s motions to compel further until after withdrawal of counsel for Plaintiff. The hearings on the discovery and sanctions motions are continued to December 3, 2024, the same date and time as the hearing on the motion by Plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Kelley’s Motions to Compel Further Responses are CONTINUED.

Mr. Partiyeli is ordered to give notice of the continued hearings and to file proof of service of that notice with the court in advance of the continued hearing date. Even if Plaintiff does not have new counsel by then, the Court will rule on the pending motions on December 3.