Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV36713, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36713    Hearing Date: January 28, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Ryan Blekier (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on November 21, 2022 against Defendant Craig Sackeim. On February 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint, alleging causes of action for (1) failure to pay overtime wages, (2) failure to pay terminated or quitting employee, (3) unfair business practices, (4) failure to pay expense reimbursement.

On October 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint substituting Tobi Sackheim for “Doe 1.”

In her declaration in support of the instant motion, Tobi Sackheim’s counsel indicates that “Defendants [sic] Form Interrogatories-General, Form Interrogatories-Employment, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Admissions, all Set One, propounded by Tobi Sackheim, Defendant, were served on Plaintiff Ryan Belkier’s attorneys of record, Aarin A. Zeif and Michael A. Gould of the Gould Law Firm on May 23, 2024...” (Winters Decl., ¶ 2.)

Tobi Sackheim’s counsel states that “[a]ttached hereto as Exhibits 8 through 11 are Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants [sic] Form Interrogatories-General, Form Interrogatories-Employment, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Admissions, all Set One, respectively.” (Winters Decl., ¶ 6.) Tobi Sackheim’s counsel further states that “[a]ttached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of my emailed letter dated July 15, 2024 to Aarin Zeif, addressing his failure to provide any substantive response to the discovery requests, and inviting him to either provide further responses or to communicate with me…Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a string of emails on July 18 and 19, 2024 to and from Aarin Zeif, who disregarded my invitation to further respond to discovery or communicate with me, and telling me of his intent to file a Motion to Withdraw as Plaintiff’s counsel.” (Winters Decl., ¶¶ 8-9.)

On October 16, 2024, the Court issued a minute order in this matter providing, inter alia, that “Defendant has fulfilled their Informal Discovery Conference requirement regarding the issues raised in the Plaintiff’s [sic] IDC Statement filed on August 21, 2024.” The Court notes that on August 21, 2024, Tobi Sackheim filed an IDC Statement concerning Tobi Sackheim’s “General Form Interrogatories - Set One, Employment Form Interrogatories-Set One, Request for Production of Documents-Set One, and Request for Admissions-Set One” served on May 23, 2024.

Tobi Sackheim now moves “for an Order requiring Plaintiff Ryan Belkier to fully respond to Defendants [sic] General Form Interrogatories, Employment Form Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Admissions, all Set One, propounded by Tobi Sackheim, Defendant…” Tobi Sackheim also seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff. The motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a) provides that “[o]n 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.” A motion under subdivision (a) shall “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand,” and “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b).) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a) provides that “[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.” Such a motion “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (a) provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete. (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” A motion under subdivision (a) shall “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b)(1).)

Discussion

As set forth above, Tobi Sackheim moves “for an Order requiring Plaintiff Ryan Belkier to fully respond to Defendants [sic] General Form Interrogatories, Employment Form Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Admissions, all Set One, propounded by Tobi Sackheim, Defendant…” (Mot. at p. 1:25-28.)

In the motion, Tobi Sackheim asserts that “each and every response to every discovery request was just a listing of approximately 13 objections. These same objections were made to each Form Interrogatories, as well as the six Demands for Production of Documents, and the four Requests for Admission. No attempt to actually provide substantive information or documents was made.” (Mot. at p. 3:7-10.)

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Tobi Sackheim’s motion does not appear to discuss any of the specific discovery requests at issue[1], or why further responses should be compelled to any specific request. It does not appear that Tobi Sackheim filed any separate statement in support of the motion. The Court notes that pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subdivision (a) “[e]xcept as provided in (b), any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: (1) To compel further responses to requests for admission; (2) To compel further responses to interrogatories; (3) To compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things…” (Emphasis added.)

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, “[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.”

A separate statement with this information was not provided by Tobi Sackheim. Thus, the Court is unable to consider any purported “factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute…” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (c)(3).)

In light of the foregoing, the Court denies Tobi Sackheim’s motion to compel further responses.

Lastly, Tobi Sackheim seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h), “[e]xcept as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully … 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.”

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 … 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.”

In addition, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, 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 opposes a motion to compel further response, 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.” 

Plaintiff did not oppose the instant motion. Thus, the Court declines to award sanctions against Plaintiff.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Tobi Sackheim’s motion to compel further discovery responses is denied. Tobi Sackheim’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff is denied.

Tobi Sackheim is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED:  January 28, 2025   

                        ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court