Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21CHCV00760, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00760    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 3-2-23

Case # 21CHCV00760

Trial Date: N/A

INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants, Maya Shulman dba Shulman Family Law Group

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Olga Kapustin

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Maya Shulman dba. Shulman Family Law Group alleges Defendant Olga Kapustin owes $93,931.48 for legal services rendered.

On September 30, 2021 and January 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint and first amended complaint for Breach of Contract, and Common Counts. Defendant answered and filed a cross-complaint for fraud and declaratory relief on June 6, 2022.

On September 26, 2022, the case was assigned from Department 49 to Department 51. Following a 170.6, the case was assigned back to Department 49 on October 25, 2022.

RULING: Denied.

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants, Maya Shulman, a Law Corporation dba Shulman Family Law Group moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (set one), numbers 2-24 from Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Olga Kapustin. All contested responses arise from an attorney work product objection. Defendant/Cross-Complainant challenges the timeliness of the motion. Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants were granted an extension until November 18, 2022. Although Defendant/Cross-Complainant represents service of supplemental responses on October 28, 2022, the opposition maintains that the motion only addresses the original responses, rather than the supplemental responses.

The responses were served on August 1, 2022. Moving party represents an extension to bring the motion. The e-mail exchange shows an extension until November 10, 2022. [Declaration of Joshua Friedman, ¶¶ 6-7, Ex. D.] The instant motion was filed on November 22, 2022. Other than a conclusion of timely filing, the court finds no basis for this determination. The motion is therefore denied on grounds of untimeliness.

Even if the motion was timely filed, however, the court finds insufficient support for the motion.

"Whether a particular response does resolve satisfactorily the issues raised by a motion is a matter best determined by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion, based on the circumstances of the case. In many cases involving untimely responses, the propounding party will take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions. If the propounding party proceeds with the motion, however, the trial court has the discretion to rule on the motion. The trial court might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories; it might deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions; it might treat the motion as one under section 2030.300 and either determine that further answers are required, or order the propounding party to “meet and confer” (§ 2030.300, subd. (b)) and file a separate statement (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1020(a)(2), (c)); or it might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding party to file a motion under section 2030.300."

(Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408–409.)

The court declines to address the prior, now moot responses. The court also declines to proactively address the sufficiency of the supplemental responses.

The motion is therefore denied. Court policy favors the imposition of sanctions against a party bringing unmeritorious motions. Defendant/Cross-Complainant declines any request for sanctions. The court advises Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants to carefully present discovery motions to the court after review of statutory deadlines and criteria. Continued and regular disputes may lead to the imposition of significant sanctions, and potential referral to a discovery referee at the cost of the parties.

Moving party to give notice.