Judge: Sandy N. Leal, Case: 2021-01223063, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling
Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written)
MOTION NO. 1:
Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Salim Yurdagul is GRANTED.
Plaintiff moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450.
Plaintiff has shown that Defendant’s deposition was properly noticed multiple times. Specifically, on January 19, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with a notice of deposition for February 2, 2023; on May 11, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with a notice of deposition for May 25, 2023; and on May 16, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with a notice of deposition for June 29, 2023, which was a date previously offered by Defendant’s counsel. (Medvei Decl., ¶ 4-6, Exs. 1, 4, 6.) Each time Defendant objected to the deposition notice on the grounds that the deposition date was unilaterally chosen by Plaintiff and that Defense Counsel and Defendant were not available on that date. (Medvei Decl., ¶ 4-6, Ex. 2, 5, 7.) Although Defendant offered alternative dates, the dates were either after the trial date, or after Defendant’s deadline for motion to compel deposition.
Based on the foregoing, the Motion is GRANTED.
Defendant is ORDERED to appear for his deposition within 10-days of the date of service of the notice of this order.
Defendant is also ORDERED to pay $560 in sanctions to Plaintiff within 10 days of the date of service of the notice of this order.
Plaintiff to give notice.
MOTION NO. 2:
Defendant Linda Yurdagul moves to compel Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC to provide further responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 35, 38, 41, 47, 53, 62, 65, 68, 71, 74, 77.
Defendant moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300.
Special Interrogatory Nos. 35, 41, 47, 62, 71, 74, 77:
Plaintiff objected to each of these Interrogatories on the grounds that the (1) Interrogatory is not complete in and of itself; (2) Interrogatory contains improper instructions with incorrect response date; (3) attorney work product; and (4) calls for a narrative. Further, in the opposition, Plaintiff also contends that Plaintiff was not required to respond to more than 35 special interrogatories because the Special Interrogatories, Set Two was not accompanied by a declaration for additional discovery as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.030.
The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the interrogatories. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)
The Interrogatories are complete in and of themselves and therefore the objection on this ground lacks merit. To the extent the Interrogatories contain an instruction that the Plaintiff respond within 30 days of service of the request instead of 30 days plus extension for electronic service, the technically incorrect instruction is not sufficient grounds for refusing to provide a complete response. Further, Plaintiff has not justified its objections on the grounds of attorney work product or that the Interrogatory calls for a narrative. Lastly, Plaintiff did not object to the Interrogatories on the ground that it was not accompanied by a declaration for additional discovery and therefore waived any objection on this ground.
Plaintiff’s response to the Interrogatories fails to provide sufficient facts such the dates of the alleged violations or identity of clients in connection with the alleged violation.
Therefore, the request to compel a further response to Interrogatory Nos. 35, 41, 47, 62, 71, 74, 77 is GRANTED.
Special Interrogatory Nos. 38, 53, 65 and 68:
Plaintiff objected to these Interrogatories on the same grounds as Interrogatory Nos. 35, 41, 47, 62, 71, 74, 77. For the reasons discussed as to those Interrogatories, Plaintiff’s objections are not grounds for its failing to provide a complete response.
Plaintiff responded to these Interrogatories by stating that Linda Yurdagul did not individually violate this provision and that Salim Yurdagul who is an employee of Linda Yurdagul’s business also violated this provision. Plaintiff’s response does not provide sufficient facts such as dates of the alleged violation; identity of clients in connection with the alleged violation; or in what way Salim Yurdagul violated the provision.
Therefore, the request to compel a further response to Interrogatory Nos. 38, 53, 65 and 68 is GRANTED.
Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED for failure to sufficiently meet and confer with Plaintiff prior to filings this Motion.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.020 for Defendants’ failure to meet and confer prior to filing this Motion is GRANTED in the amount of $500. Defendant is ORDERED to pay $500 in sanctions to Plaintiff with 20-days of the notice of this order.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to provides responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 35, 38, 41, 47, 53, 62, 65, 68, 71, 74, 77 within 20-days of the notice of this order.
Defendant to give notice.