Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00278, Date: 2023-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00278    Hearing Date: February 22, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 2-22-23

Case #22CHCV00278

Trial Date: 8-14-23

FURTHER RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Roy Halpern

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Javier Rodriguez dba Grumpy’s Automotive

RELIEF REQUESTED

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

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Roy Halpern alleges Defendant Javier Rodriguez dba Grumpy’s Automotive failed to pay rent due on December 1, 2021, and refused to give up possession of the premises. The property is located at 9933 Glade Ave., Chatsworth.

On April 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Breach of Written Contract.

RULING: Denied, without prejudice / Moot.

Plaintiff Roy Halpern brings a motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories (set two), numbers 15.1 & 17.1. Plaintiff contends the responses are incomplete and inappropriate. Defendant Rodriguez in a three day late opposition challenges the meet and confer process, and represents service of supplemental responses prior to the time of the opposition. Defendant requests the court refrain from imposing sanctions. Plaintiff in reply notes the lateness of the opposition, contends the meet and confer was sufficient, and the responses remain incomplete and/or insufficient.

The parties agreed to an extension of time to file the instant motion, and the motion was timely filed less than 45 days from the date of the extension.

Neither party attached copies of the amended responses. The court therefore cannot consider the merits of the amended responses.

"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 addresses the prior responses. Numbers 15.1 and 17.1 seek information in support of all affirmative defenses, and any denials in response to requests for admissions. The responses consist of single responses to the subparts without any specific address of the individual items referenced in the interrogatories themselves. The responses also refer to extrinsic materials, and offers general conclusions.

“Answers must be complete and responsive. Thus, it is not proper to answer by stating, ‘See my deposition’, ‘See my pleading’, or ‘See the financial statement’. Indeed, if a question does require the responding party to make reference to a pleading or document, the pleading or document should be identified and summarized so the answer is fully responsive to the question.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783–784.) The responses to previously produced documents and/or extrinsic references are improper. The remainder of the responses are otherwise incomplete.

It’s not clear whether the responses remain incomplete following service of the supplemental responses. The court therefore denies the motion, without prejudice, as moot. Should Plaintiff continue to maintain that further responses remain required, the court cites to the guidelines addressed above, and recommends Defendant provide complete and straightforward further factual responses in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.220.

Because Plaintiff was required to file the motion before the filing cutoff and supplemental responses were only served after the filing of the motion, as well as the late filed opposition, the court imposes sanctions in the amount of $250. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd, (d).) The total is imposed against both Plaintiff and Counsel joint and several, and payable in 30 days. Continued motions may lead to increasing amounts of sanctions.

Trial date currently set for August 14, 2023.

Plaintiff to give notice.