Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV28966, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28966    Hearing Date: March 26, 2024    Dept: 39

Scott Erickson, et al. v. Bartlett Loft

Case No. 21STCV28966

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

            Defendant Bartlett Loft (“Defendant”) filed this motion to compel Plaintiffs Scott Erickson and Ryan Erickson (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to provide further responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROGs”).  Defendant also requests sanctions in the amount of $5,156.15.  Plaintiffs’ counsel states that he served sufficient responses and that all outstanding issues have been resolved.  (Declaration of Blake S. Slater, ¶¶ 8-10.)  However, Plaintiffs’ counsel did not provide copies of the supplemental responses, so the Court cannot verify this representation.  Accordingly, the motion is granted to the extent Plaintiffs’ counsel have not already provided verified, code-compliant supplemental responses without objections. 

            The Court grants Defendant’s request for discovery sanctions based upon Plaintiffs’ conduct in this case.  The FROGs (and other discovery requests) were served on October 7, 2022.  Plaintiffs did not respond, and the Court granted motions to compel on June 5, 2023.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated June 5, 2023.)  Plaintiffs provided deficient responses on July 7, 2023, which necessitated a long process of meeting-and-conferring on straightforward “form” interrogatories.  Defendant filed this motion on November 16, 2023, and according to Plaintiffs’ counsel, he finally addressed all of the issues by December 27, 2023.  (See Declaration of Blake S. Slater, ¶ 8.)  It should not take almost 18 months to provide responses to “form” interrogatories, which are used in every case.  Moreover, Plaintiffs’ prior responses were frivolous.  The objections were boilerplate and wholly without merit.  Even after Plaintiffs provided substantive responses, they provided lacking responses in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220.  Some responses (e.g., “Unknown”) were not credible because the form interrogatory requested information Plaintiffs should have known, e.g., whether they have any pre-existing conditions related to those for which they are seeking damages, etc. 

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that this motion was necessary to facilitate Plaintiffs’ compliance with their discovery obligations, and that Plaintiffs’ conduct was an abuse of the discovery process, which entitles Defendant to discovery sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d).  The Court also notes that Plaintiffs have previously failed to cooperate with their discovery obligations.  The Court previously found as follows:

“The Court finds that Defendant’s counsel has acted with the utmost professionalism and courtesy in attempting to resolve this dispute without the need for motions. By contrast, the Court finds that Plaintiffs and their counsel have taken advantage of this courtesy and engaged in gamesmanship and abuse of the discovery process. There is no valid reason Plaintiffs still have not provided verified discovery responses without objections seven months after the deadline. Nor is there any valid reason for Plaintiffs’ counsel to have repeatedly promised substantive discovery responses and then raised objections (after they had been waived), not served discovery responses, and then opposed this motion on procedural issues.”

(See Court’s Minute Order, dated June 5, 2023.)  Simply, Plaintiffs are required to comply with their discovery obligations without a court order, and Defendant should not have to file a motion such as this one. 

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, is granted.  To the extent Plaintiffs have not done so already, they shall provide verified, code-compliant responses, without objections, within thirty (30) days.    

            2.         The Court grants Defendant’s request for sanctions.  The Court finds that the requested amount is fair and reasonable to compensate Defendant for the cost of having to litigate this issue.  The Court orders Plaintiffs and/or their counsel-of-record, Stone & Sallus LLP, jointly and severally, to pay Defendant discovery sanctions in the amount of $5,156.15 within thirty (30) days.

            3.         Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.