Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV07444, Date: 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07444    Hearing Date: October 10, 2022    Dept: 39

Sherry (Talia) Masjedi v. Tax Credit Group, Inc., et al.

Case No. 21STCV07444

Motion to Compel Further Responses

            Plaintiff Sherry (Talia) Masjedi (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel further responses from Defendant Tax Credit Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) to Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFAs”) and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPDs”).  The Court rules as follows:

RFAs – In response to the RFAs, Defendant denied each RFA, claiming that it is unable to admit or deny the matters set forth in the RFA.  A party may respond to an RFA by claiming that it lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the matter set forth in the RFA.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (c).)  However, the RFA ask Defendant to admit or deny matters that are necessarily within Defendant’s knowledge.  Accordingly, Defendant must further respond.  (See Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 318, 323.)

            RPD #6 – Plaintiff seeks documents that “evidence, concern or relate to any payment [Defendant] received relating to any account Plaintiff secured for [Defendant] at any time.”  After the motion was filed, Defendant provided a supplemental response, so the motion is denied as moot.

            Sanctions – The Court grants Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions, finding that Defendant has abused the discovery process.  As discussed, Defendant’s responses to the RFAs are deficient and suggests dilatory conduct or gamesmanship.  Defendant’s initial response to RPD #6 similarly was deficient, and the instant motion facilitated a further response.  The response did not clearly state that no responsive documents existed.  Nor was the response to RPD #5 sufficient for two reasons.  First, a party must address each RPD separately, and there is no valid reason why Defendant could not provide a separate response to RPD #6.  Putting that aside, Defendant’s response to RPD #5 does not expressly address RPD #6.  RPD #5 seeks evidence concerning “any account that Plaintiff secured for [Defendant],” in response to which Defendant stated that no responsive documents ever existed.  The mere fact that there are no documents concerning “any account that Plaintiff secured for [Defendant]” does not necessarily mean that Plaintiff did not secure any such accounts and that there were no related payments.  Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders Defendant to pay sanctions in the amount of $4,170 based upon nine hours of attorney time at a rate of $450 per hour plus two filing fees of $60 each. 

            Conclusion and Order – The Court orders Defendant to provide further responses to the RFAs at issue, without objections, within thirty (30) days.  The Court orders Defendant and Defendant’s counsel, jointly and severally, to pay discovery sanctions in the amount of $4,170 within thirty (30) days, by and through counsel.  Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.