Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00079, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00079    Hearing Date: February 15, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 2-15-23

Case #

Trial Date: 5-15-23

FURTHER DISCOVERY

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Erica Barba

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Neftali Martinez

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one)

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On February 1, 2022, plaintiff Neftali Martinez filed a complaint for quiet title, constructive trust, and resulting trust against defendant Erica Barba. Defendant answered and filed a cross-complaint for quiet title, and declaratory relief on March 25, 2022. The dispute involves title to 11208 Tamarack Ave., Pacoima.

RULING: Denied

Defendant moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories (set one), number 15.1. Defendant contends the responses were insufficient. Plaintiff in opposition represents service of amended responses to the subject item, and contends the delayed response was the result of oversight. Defendant in reply maintains the responses remain deficient, and demands sanctions.

"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.)

Plaintiff attached copies of the amended responses and proofs of service. [Declaration of Richard Miller, Ex. 1.] Defendant acknowledges the responses, but the reply insufficiently articulates the alleged remaining deficiencies. The court therefore declines to consider the merits of the motion. The motion is therefore denied.

The only remaining issue is therefore the payment of sanctions. Plaintiff offered $660, while Defendant demands $1,100. The court adheres to a policy for the imposition of sanctions, if responses were prompted by service of the motion. The court however generally only awards sanctions in the amount of $250 for a first motion with an increasing amount. The $660 well exceeds the normal amount the court would award, and the court therefore caps sanctions for the subject motion at $660. The total is imposed against both Plaintiff and Counsel joint and several, and payable in 30 days.

Motion for Summary Judgment set for February 27, 2023, with the trial date currently set for May 15, 2023.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.