Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV11567, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV11567    Hearing Date: September 12, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Special Interrogatory No. 17 is GRANTED. 

Background

This is an action for premises liability and general negligence. According to the Complaint, on March 5, 2022, Plaintiff Valantin Delkhah (“Plaintiff”) tripped and fell down a cracked and defective stairway that was under the ownership, operation, or control of Defendants and sustained significant injuries.

On April 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Robert Leo Kunert (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 25. On August 29, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.

On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff served discovery, including Special Interrogatories (Set One) on Defendant. (Behnamjou Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. 1.) Special Interrogatory No. 17 states, “If there was a contract, lease, or agreement RELATED TO the property where the INCIDENT occurred, please list the nature of the writing, the names of the parties, and the description of the agreement.” (Id., Exh. 1.)

Defendant initially objected and then, following meet-and-confer correspondence, agreed to amend the response. An amended response, served on February 21, 2023, asserts objections and then states, “Rental Agreement between defendant and his tenant, attached hereto as Exhibit A.” (Id., Exh. 3.) This response was not verified, and Exhibit A was not attached. (Id., ¶¶ 5-6.)

On May 9, 2023, Defendant provided a verification for the responses. (Id., Exh. 4). Again, however, Exhibit A was not attached. (Id., ¶¶ 6-10.)

On May 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion. The hearing was initially set for June 23 and then was continued to September 12 by the Court. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (2) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Id., subd. (d).)

In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that any person “engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” A “misuse of the discovery process” includes (among other things) failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery; making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; and making an evasive response to a discovery request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d)-(f).)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 17. Although Defendant, in response, purported to exercise his option under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 to identify and produce documents, Defendant has not in fact produced the documents at issue. This is plainly improper. Section 2030,230 requires a responding both to identify the documents from which the answer to an interrogatory may be ascertained and also to produce them. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230 [“The responding party shall then afford to the propounding party a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these document and to make copies … of them.”].)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also granted in part. Defendant’s conduct is not substantially justified, and there is no evidence in the record upon which the Court could find that the imposition of sanctions on Defendant would be unjust. Monetary sanctions are awarded in the amount of $685, calculated as 2.5 hours of attorney time, multiplied by counsel’s hourly rate of $250 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee. (See Behnamjou Decl., ¶ 11.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Defendant is ORDERED either to produce the “Rental Agreement” identified in his interrogatory response or to provide a verified, written, code-compliant response to Special Interrogatory No. 17 within 30 days of notice of this order.

The Court also GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. Defendant and counsel of record Stratman & Williams-Abrego are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $685 within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.