Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 19STCV38469, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV38469    Hearing Date: March 1, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

            Background

On October 28, 2019, Plaintiffs Willie F. McMullen, Jr. (“McMullen”), Deanna Welch (“Welch”), and Daijon Carcamo filed this action against Defendants Ana Ward (“Ward”), HDSI Management, Inc. (“HDSI”), Walton Halad Company Two, LLC (“Walton”), and Kimball, Tirey & St. John LLP.   

The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) was filed on August 9, 2021, and asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) defamation per se, (3) discrimination, (4) breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, (5) negligent supervision of employee, (6) inducing breach of contract, and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress.[1]

The instant motion appears to concern certain supplemental responses Defendants served in response to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatory No. 15.1. (See Mot. at p. 7:9-19.)

On December 7, 2022, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”). The Court’s December 7, 2022 minute order provides, inter alia, that “[t]he parties attended an Informal Discovery Conference on December 7, 2022 regarding issues one and two identified in the Informal Discovery Conference Statements file [sic] by the parties on December 1, 2022 and December 5, 2022.”[2] The December 7, 2022 minute order further provides that “1. Defendant will review their Answer to the Second Amended Complaint to determine if the parts thereof should be amended and the impact thereof on the defendant’s responses to Form

Interrogatories 15.1. Defendants will inform Plaintiffs as to the results of that review and serve any amended answer that contains further admissions and any supplemental responses to form Interrogatories 15.1.”

McMullen states that on January 10, 2023, he emailed counsel for Defendants stating, in part, “[w]ill you be providing supplemental responses to form interrogatories 15.1 to all the paragraphs stated in my IDC statement that was discussed at the December 7, 2022 IDC.” (McMullen Decl., ¶ 23.) On January 13, 2023, McMullen received an email from Defendants’ counsel stating in part that, “[w]e will not be serving supplementals. My understanding is that supplementals would be served as applicable if the answer was being amended.” (McMullen Decl., ¶ 24.)

McMullen and Welch (jointly, “Plaintiffs”), in pro per, now move for an order compelling HDSI, Walton, and Ward “to provide further responses to Form Interrogatory, No. 15.1.” Ward, HDSI, and Walton (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose.

Discussion

Procedural Issues

            As an initial matter, on January 27, 2023, the Court issued an Order permitting Plaintiffs to file seven additional pages to their memorandum in their Motion to Compel Further Responses From Defendants to Form Interrogatory, No. 15.1. (See January 27, 2023 Order.)

            Plaintiffs’ memorandum of points and authorities in support of the instant motion is 20 pages long. Defendants note that “[a] memorandum that exceeds 15 pages must also include an opening summary of argument.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113, subd. (f).) Defendants assert that “Plaintiffs fail to include an opening summary of its argument within their memorandum. Consequently, both Defendants and this Court have been tasked with considering the entirety of Plaintiffs’ motion (totaling 1410 pages with exhibits) without a cogent understanding as to why Plaintiffs are requesting this Court compel Defendants to provide further responses to FROGG No. 15.1.” (Opp’n at p. 7:25-8:1.) Although Plaintiffs’ memorandum includes an “Introduction” section, the Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs fail to include a cogent opening summary of argument, particularly as to which specific responses are the subject of the instant motion.

            Defendants also assert that Plaintiffs failed to file a separate statement in compliance with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subdivision (a)(2), “[t]he motions that require a separate statement include a motion…(2) To compel further responses to interrogatories…” California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subdivision (c) provides as follows:

“A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference. The separate statement must include--for each discovery request (e.g., each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested--the following:

(1) The text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection demand;

(2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers;

(3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute;

(4) If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it;

(5) If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth; and

(6) If the pleadings, other documents in the file, or other items of discovery are relevant to the motion, the party relying on them must summarize each relevant document.”

Additionally, “[a] motion concerning interrogatories, inspection demands, or admission requests must identify the interrogatories, demands, or requests by set and number.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (d).) 

As Defendants note, Plaintiffs’ separate statement filed in support of the instant motion does not comply with all of the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345. First, Plaintiffs fail to identify the interrogatories by set. It is unclear whether Plaintiffs are moving to compel responses to Form Interrogatories propounded by McMullen, Welch, or both Plaintiffs. It is also unclear which set of Form Interrogatories are the subject of the motion.

In addition, as Defendants note, Plaintiffs’ separate statement references three responses by Defendants to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 but fails to provide a separate statement for each response Plaintiffs assert is deficient. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (c), “[t]he separate statement must include--for each discovery request…to which a further response, answer, or production is requested--the following…”) Lastly, as Defendants note, the separate statement references numerous documents which are not attached. However, “[t]he separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (c).)

In addition, to the extent Plaintiffs are moving to compel further responses as to

Defendants’ supplemental responses to Form Interrogatory No. 15 set forth in Exhibits 15 and 17 to Mr. McMullen’s Declaration, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause to do so.[3]

Motion to Compel

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), “[o]n 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.” (Ibid., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 requires that each answer to an interrogatory must be as “complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).)¿ 

HDSI’s Second Supplemental Responses to McMullen’s and Welch’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) provide, inter alia, as to Interrogatory No. 15.1 that, “[t]he causes of action maintained against HDSI Management, Inc…in this case are defamation and discrimination. In order to avoid repetition and redundancy, the below facts apply to denials of material allegations contained in Paragraphs 130-141 of the Second Amended Complaint…In order to avoid repetition and redundancy, the below facts apply to denials of material allegations contained in Paragraphs 142-152 of the Second Amended Complaint…” (McMullen Decl., ¶ 18, Ex. 15.)

Walton’s Second Supplemental Responses to Welch’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) provides, inter alia, as to Interrogatory No. 15.1 that “[t]he only cause of action maintained against Walton in this case is breach of contract claimed by plaintiffs Welch and Daijon Carcamo…In order to avoid repetition and redundancy, the below facts apply to all of the following denials of material allegations contained in Paragraphs 106-129 of the Second Amended Complaint…” (McMullen Decl., ¶ 18, Ex. 15.)

Ward’s Supplemental Responses to McMullen’s Form Interrogatories (Set Two) provides inter alia, as to Interrogatory No. 15.1 that “[t]he causes of action maintained against Ana Ward in this case are defamation and discrimination…In order to avoid repetition and redundancy, the below facts apply to denials of material allegations contained in Paragraphs 130-141 of the Second Amended Complaint…In order to avoid repetition and redundancy, the below facts apply to denials of material allegations contained in Paragraphs 142-152 of the Second Amended Complaint…” (McMullen Decl., ¶ 20, Ex. 17.)

Plaintiffs note in the motion that Paragraphs 106, 130, and 142 of the SAC each allege, inter alia, that “Plaintiff[s] incorporates by reference the facts set forth in paragraphs 1 through 191.”[4] Plaintiffs argue that “[s]ince all three paragraphs in Plaintiffs’ SAC and Defendants’ Answer incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 191 and the denials thereof, Defendants must comply with form interrogatory, no 15.1 to all 191 allegations because Defendants have

identified them as material.” (Mot. at p. 8:16-19.)

            As noted by Defendants, not all 191 paragraphs of Plaintiffs’ operative complaint are still relevant in this action, as Plaintiffs’ causes of action for breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment (SAC, ¶¶ 153 – 157), negligent supervision of employee (SAC, ¶¶ 158 –170), inducing breach of contract (SAC, ¶¶ 171 – 184), and IIED (SAC, ¶¶ 185 – 191) have been struck from Plaintiffs’ complaint. (Truong Decl., ¶ 8.) Moreover, Defendants assert that not every paragraph in the SAC is material such that each paragraph requires a response. (See Opp’n at     p. 14:10-15:13.) Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 provides:

“Identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings and for each:

(a) State all facts upon which you base the denial or special or affirmative defense;

(b) State the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone number of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and

(c) Identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.” (Form Interrogatories – General, No. 15.1, emphasis added.) 

The responses that appear to be the subject of this motion do not specifically identify each of the 191 allegations of the SAC as material.

Plaintiffs also assert that Defendants identified affirmative defenses in their responses but failed to state facts which the affirmative defenses are based on and/or identify any documents that supports them. However, as Defendants note, they do state facts in the responses on which the affirmative defenses are based. As to the identification of documents, Defendants indicate in their responses that “[p]ursuant to CCP Section 2030.230, Responding Party hereby elects to respond to this interrogatory by producing documents. Responding Party refers Plaintiffs to documents which have already been produced in discovery.” (McMullen Decl., ¶ 18, Ex. 15;      ¶ 20, Ex. 17.)[5] Defendants assert they have “identified those documents within its response to FROGGS No. 15.1(a); and those documents are also equally available to Plaintiffs. Again, these documents include the court records for the underlying unlawful detainer actions and the Brief re: Stipulation Noncompliance and declarations filed in support of the second unlawful detainer.” (See Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement.) Plaintiffs do not respond to this point in the reply.

The Court notes that to the extent Plaintiffs are attempting to argue and obtain a ruling on the merits of their case, the instant motion to compel is not the appropriate vehicle by which to do so. As Defendants note, Plaintiffs focus the vast majority of their moving papers on arguing the factual background they believe establishes the bases for certain of their causes of action. As set forth above, the purpose of the instant type of motion is to seek an order compelling a further response to an interrogatory if the propounding party deems that “(1) [a]n 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).)

Lastly, Defendants seek monetary sanctions in connection with the opposition. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d), “[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 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.” The Court finds that Plaintiffs acted with substantial justification in presenting their position and thus declines to award monetary sanctions to Defendants.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is denied. Defendants are ordered to give notice of this order.

DATED:  March 1, 2023                                ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court