Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV35560, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35560    Hearing Date: December 1, 2023    Dept: 29

Tentative

The motions to compel are GRANTED.

The requests for sanctions are GRANTED in part.

Background 

This is an action arising out of an incident that occurred on June 8, 2020.  On September 27, 2021, Plaintiff Valerii Mikhailov (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this action against Defendants Golden Edge, LLC (“Defendant”), Zhehenghan International Trading, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, asserting claims for premises liability and general negligence.  Defendant filed its answer on February 25, 2022.

On May 13, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with discovery requests, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One).  (Tchillingririan Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiff served responses in July 2022 and then, after a lengthy meet-and-confer process, amended responses on April 3, 2023.  (Id., ¶¶ 3-8 & Exhs. F.)  An informal discovery conference (IDC) was held on August 28, 2023.

Defendant filed three motions on July 10, 2023, seeking to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One).  The Form Interrogatories motion was set for hearing on August 22, and the other two were set for hearing on October 11.  Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses” on August 21, 2023, requesting a continuance of the hearing.

The hearing on the Form Interrogatories motion was continued to October 11.  On October 11, the hearing on all three motions was continued to December 1.

Plaintiff has filed no further opposition.

Trial is currently set for July 15, 2024.

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. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Notice of a motion to compel further responses must be given “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Id., subd. (c).)

A motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration and a separate statement or, in the discretion of the Court, a “concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Id., subd. (b)(1) & (b)(2); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)

“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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.  (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.  (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

Notice of a motion to compel further responses must be given “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Id., subd. (c).)

A motion to compel further responses must set forth specific facts showing good cause for the discovery and must be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration and a separate statement or, in the discretion of the Court, a “concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Id., subd. (b)(1)-(3); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)

“[T]he 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 further response to a demand, 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

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; making an evasive response to a discovery request; disobeying a court order to provide discovery; and making or opposing, unsuccessfully, a motion to compel without substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d)-(h).)

Discussion 

Form Interrogatories (Set One)

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel further responses as to Form Interrogatory Nos. 2.6, 6.5, 6.6, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 11.2.  The responses are not complete. 

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel further responses as to Form Interrogatory Nos. 6.7, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, and 8.8.  The objections are overruled.

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel further responses as to Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, and 12.7.  The responses are not complete and not code compliant. 

Special Interrogatories (Set One)

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel further responses as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, 38, 39, and 44.  The responses are not complete.  The objections are overruled. 

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel a further response as to Special Interrogatory No. 5.  The response is not complete. 

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel further responses as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 17, 23, 30, 32, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, and 49.  The responses are not complete and code compliant.  The objections are overruled. 

The Court DENIES the motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 19, 20, 27, 33, 34, 37, 50, and 51.

Requests for Production (Set One)

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel further responses as to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 22, 23, 25, 26, 31, and 32.  The responses are not complete and/or the statement of inability to comply is not code compliant.  The objections are overruled.  Good cause shown.

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel further responses as to Requests for Production Nos. 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24, 27, 28, 29, and 30.  The statement of compliance is incomplete and therefore not code compliant.  The objections are overruled.  Good cause shown.

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel further responses as to Request for Production Nos. 19 and 35.  The responses are not complete.

The Court DENIES the motion to compel further responses as to Requests for Production Nos. 20, 21, 33, 34.  The requests as phrased are overly broad.  Good cause not shown.  The denial is without prejudice to Defendants serving a more focused request.

Sanctions

The Court has largely granted Defendants’ motions to compel.  Plaintiff and his attorney have not acted with substantial justification, and the imposition of sanctions would not be unjust.  The Court sets monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $840 per motion, calculated based on four hours of attorney time per motion (taking into the account the economies of scale associated with preparing parallel motions), multiplied by counsel’s billing rate of $210 per hour.  The total amount of sanctions for all three motions is $2,520.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide further verified, written responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One), as set forth above, within 30 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff and counsel of record SP Law Group, APC, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to Defendants in the amount of $2,520 ($840 per motion, multiplied by three motions), within 30 days of notice.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice.