Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV02783, Date: 2024-07-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23TRCV02783 Hearing Date: July 11, 2024 Dept: 8
Tentative Ruling¿¿
¿¿¿
HEARING DATE: July 11, 2024¿
¿¿¿
CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV02783
¿¿¿
CASE NAME: Valentin Provencio v. Samajo
Properties, LLC, et al.
¿¿¿
MOVING PARTY: Defendant,
Samajo Properties, LLC
¿¿¿
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff,
Valentin Provencio
¿¿¿
TRIAL DATE: August 4, 2025
¿¿¿
MOTION:¿ (1) Defendants, Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for
Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One
(2) Request for
Sanctions
Tentative Rulings: (1) Denied without Prejudice
or Continued to allow the filing of a separate statement if no further
responses have yet been provided.
(2) Denied without
prejudice.
A motion to compel further responses requires a Separate Statement
regardless of whether the responding party breached a promise to provide
further responses. The Rules of Court
only provide 2 exceptions to the requirement of a separate statement for a
discovery motion; however, breach of a promise to supplement or amend is not
one of them. With 21 special interrogatories
at issue, the Court has no basis for an order compelling further responses
without knowing what the interrogatories asked about or what the initial
responses said or what objections were asserted. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel represented in
the Opposition that his office would be serving further responses before the
hearing, which would moot the motion to compel further responses but which
would not moot the request for monetary sanctions.
The length of time between the alleged promise to provide further
responses and the filing of this motion is troubling. Absent very good cause the Court would be
inclined at a future hearing to order monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and
his counsel because a party should not be required to file a motion in order to
obtain promised further responses, especially where the initial responses were patently
insufficient. Perhaps the parties will negotiate
a fair compensation for defense counsel’s efforts and avoid the need for 3 more
rounds of motion, opposition, and reply briefing.
I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿
¿¿¿
A. Factual¿¿¿
¿¿¿
On August 24, 2023, Plaintiff, Valentin
Provencio (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Samajo
Properties, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100. The complaint alleges one cause of
action for Premises Liability/Negligence. The complaint is based on the
allegations that Defendants were the owners of the apartment building located
at 8664 Falmouth Avenue, Playa Del Rey, California 90293. (Complaint, ¶ 5.) On
September 15, 2021, Plaintiff alleges that approximately 11:00 am, Plaintiff
was visiting a tenant at the subject property, when Plaintiff went to the
laundry room to assist the tenant with his laundry. (Complaint, ¶ 6.)
Plaintiff contends that as soon as Plaintiff stepped into the laundry area with
his right foot, he slipped on soapy water and his feet flew out from under him
and his tailbone landed on the step leading into the laundry room. (Complaint,
¶ 7.) Plaintiff alleges that during the incident, he fractured his tailbone,
reinjured his low back, and left shoulder. (Complaint, ¶ 8.)
Defendant,
Samajo Properties, LLC (“Defendant”) asserts that on September 20, 2023, it
served Special Interrogatories, Set One on Plaintiff, and that after numerous
extensions, the responses were served on December 7, 2023. However, Defendant
contends that the responses were insufficient, and sent a meet and confer
correspondence to Plaintiff’s counsel via email on December 18, 2023.
Subsequently, on January 7, 2023, Defendant notes that Plaintiff provided a
response to Defendant’s December 18, 2023 meet and confer correspondence.
Defendant asserts that as the parties were in the process of meeting and
conferring, an extension was provided to Defendant as to the time frame for the
filing of its IDC and/or motion to compel.
On
January 9, 2024, Defendant asserts that it made another good faith meet and
confer attempt to address the deficiencies it identified in Plaintiff’s
discovery responses, requesting the Plaintiff provide a time frame in which he
would provide his further responses and documents. Defendant asserts the
Plaintiff agreed to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos.
5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 19, 29, 30, 34, 37, 38, 40, 42-45, 49, and 66-69. Defendant’s counsel notes that his office
spoke to Plaintiff’s counsel regarding further responses and documents by
February 9, 202, and granting Defendant an open ended extension for the filing
of its potential IDC and/or motion to compel. Further, Defense counsel notes
that he forwarded another email to Plaintiff’s counsel memorializing the
telephone conversation.
However,
Plaintiff did not serve the further responses. On February 12, 2024, counsel
for Defendant asserts they his office sent another email to Plaintiff’s counsel
regarding such failure. Defendant contends that it granted another two-week
extension to February 26, 2024. However, on February 26, 2024, Plaintiff’s
counsel told defense counsel that he still did not have all of the medical
records. At that time, Plaintiff’s counsel requested another extension to March
15, 2024, which was granted. However, again, as of March 15, 2024, Defendant
asserts it did not receive any further responses or documents and had not been
provided any correspondence from Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the outstanding
discovery.
As
such, Defendant has filed this Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special
Interrogatories Nos. 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 19, 29, 30, 34, 37, 38, 40, 42-45, 49,
and 66-69.
B. Procedural¿¿¿
¿¿
On April 5, 2024, Defendant filed its
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and
Request for Monetary Sanctions. On June 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition
brief. On July 2, 2024, Defendant filed a reply brief.
¿II.
ANALYSIS¿¿
¿¿
A. Motion
to Compel Further
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, 411
Section
§2031.310(a) provides in pertinent part: “On receipt of a response to an inspection
demand, the party demanding an inspection may move for an order compelling a
further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the
following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete….
(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” Further, if
the responding party objects to an inspection demand, the response must
“identify with particularity” any document or thing failing within any category
in the demand to which the objection is made, and set forth the specific ground
for objection. (Code Civ. Proc. §2031.240(b).) A statement of inability to
comply must also (1) affirm a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been
made, (2) that the inability to comply is because the responsive item has never
existed, has been destroyed, lost, misplaced or stolen, or has never been or is
no longer in the responding party’s possession, custody, or control. (Code Civ.
Proc. §2031.230.) The statement must also set forth the name and address of the
person or organization believed to have possession, custody or control of the
item. Finally, if any documents are withheld pursuant to a claimed privilege,
the responding party must ‘(A) identify with particularity [the] document…, and
(B) set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the
objection…, the particular privilege…[and] if an objection is based on a claim
that the information sought is protected work product [under Section 2018.010],
that claim shall be expressly asserted.” (Code Civ. Proc. §
2031.240(b).)
Notice of the motions must be
given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the
propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).) The motions
must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2030.300, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b).)
Discussion
Preliminarily, this Court notes that pursuant to
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subdivision (a)(2), a Motion to Compel
further requires the moving party to file its motion with a separate statement.
Subdivision (b) lists two exceptions to the requirement of the separate statement,
and breach of a responding party’s promise to supplement or amend is not one of
those exceptions. As such, Defendant’s
argument -- that it does not need to prepare a separate statement -- is of no
merit merely because Plaintiff previously agreed to provide further responses
but then reneged on that promise. Because
Defendant has not provided this Court with a separate statement, the Court has
no basis for knowing what the 41 special interrogatories requested, what the
original, allegedly deficient responses said, what objections were asserted, or
the scope of what further order it should make.
The Separate Statement requirement, now contained in Rule of Court
3.1345, was designed to help a trial judge to evaluate a discovery motion
without reading an attached copy of (1) the discovery requests (Exh. 1 to the
Black Decl. here), flipping back and forth to the attached (2) responding party’s
responses (Exh. 3 here), and then turning to the separately filed briefs (i.e.,
the (3) defense motion filed 4/5/24 and (4) Plaintiff’s opposition filed 6/27/24)
to divine what each side contended were the reasons for an order of further
responses or a narrowing of the scope of the requests or ruling on objections
asserted. The Separate Statement,
because it consolidates components (1) through (4), thus is of critical
importance to a successful discovery motion.
It is not to be cavalierly ignored.
Further, in the course of preparing a separate statement and the
responding party’s rejoinder, the parties often narrow the scope of the dispute
or make concessions, thereby reducing the number of the discovery requests
requiring the Court to make a ruling.
The Court
is willing to continue the hearing to allow the moving party to prepare and
file the mandated separate statement, unless Plaintiff has in fact provided
verified further responses before the hearing.
Of course, the cost of preparing a separate statement would then be
added to the monetary sanctions the Court is inclined to grant. The Court notes that under Code of Civil
Procedure §2023.010(h), it is sanctionable discovery misuse for a party to
oppose a motion to compel without substantial justification. It would be difficult for Plaintiff to
justify its opposition to this motion if, in fact, counsel promised to provide
further responses to all 41 special interrogatories but then failed to do so
for months. Parties should not be
required to file a discovery motion to obtain compliance with discovery
obligations, which is why even the service of a verified further response does
not moot the monetary sanctions aspect of a motion to compel further
responses.