Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 18STCV10316, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV10316    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     February 10, 2023                 TRIAL DATE: October 17, 2023

CASE:                         Sunderipal S. Arora v. Daljeet Singh, et al.

CASE NO.:                 18STCV10316           

(1)   MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET TWO); REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(2)   MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO); REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               (1)(2) Plaintiff Sunderipal S. Arora

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1)(2) Defendant Daljeet Singh

CASE HISTORY:

·         12/28/18: Complaint filed.

·         06/24/19: First Amended Complaint filed.

·         02/24/20: Cross-Complaint filed

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for fraud and breach of contract arising from a dispute concerning a buyout of a partnership for the management of rental properties.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for production and to special interrogatories propounded to Defendant Daljeet Singh, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is MOOT.

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is MOOT.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set Two) is DENIED.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set Two)

            Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production (Set Two) propounded to Defendant Daljeet Singh.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to a demand for inspection when the court finds that: “(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[;] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive[; or] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

The burden is on the moving party to “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) These facts must also be set forth in a separate statement filed by the moving party. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(c).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

Timeliness

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production must be served “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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c).) The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Here, Defendant’s initial responses were served on December 14, 2022. (Declaration of Craig R. Smith ISO Mot. ¶ 3 Exh. B.) Incomplete supplemental responses were served on January 5, 2023. (Id. ¶ 4.) This motion was filed on January 17, 2023, within 45 days of both the initial and supplemental responses. This motion is therefore timely.

Meet and Confer

A party making a motion to compel further responses must also include a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)

Here, Plaintiff states that the meet and confer process consisted of a single e-mail exchange between the parties between December 14, 2022 and January 5, 2023. (Smith Decl. ¶ 4.) There is no indication from the moving papers that any subsequent efforts were undertaken. A single email exchange is entirely insufficient to satisfy Plaintiff’s statutory obligations to make a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve this dispute. Nevertheless, the Court will address the remaining issues in the motion on their merits.

Analysis

            The parties agree that supplemental responses to the Requests for Production were served after this motion was filed. Plaintiff does not challenge the adequacy of Defendant’s supplemental responses, but nonetheless seeks sanctions for Defendant’s deficient responses.

            Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,175.00 against Defendant and his counsel, jointly and severally.

            As stated above, Plaintiff did not adequately meet and confer with Defendant before filing this motion. Indeed, as supplemental responses have since been provided, these motions might have been avoided altogether if Plaintiff had properly met and conferred. The Court does not think sanctions are justified where, as here, the moving party makes no meaningful attempt to meaningfully resolve the dispute.

Conclusion

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is MOOT.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set Two) is DENIED.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two)

            Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) propounded to Defendant Daljeet Singh.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to an interrogatory when the court finds that: “(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[; or] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Timing:

            A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be served “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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).) The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Here, Defendant’s initial responses were served on December 14, 2022. (Declaration of Craig R. Smith ISO Mot. ¶ 3 Exh. B.) Incomplete supplemental responses were served on January 5, 2023. (Id. ¶ 4.) This motion was filed on January 17, 2023, within 45 days of both the initial and supplemental responses. This motion is therefore timely.

Meet and Confer

A party making a motion to compel further responses must also include a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300 (b)(1).)

Here, Plaintiff states that the meet and confer process consisted of a single e-mail exchange between the parties between December 14, 2022 and January 5, 2023. (Smith Decl. ¶ 4.) There is no indication from the moving papers that any subsequent efforts were undertaken. A single email exchange is entirely insufficient to satisfy Plaintiff’s statutory obligations to make a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve this dispute. Nevertheless, the Court will address the remaining issues in the motion on their merits.

Analysis

            The parties agree that supplemental responses to the Requests for Production were served after this motion was filed. Plaintiff does not challenge the adequacy of Defendant’s supplemental responses, but nonetheless seeks sanctions for Defendant’s deficient responses.

            Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,175.00 against Defendant and his counsel, jointly and severally

            As stated above, Plaintiff did not adequately meet and confer with Defendant before filing this motion. Indeed, as supplemental responses have since been provided, these motions might have been avoided altogether if Plaintiff had properly met and conferred. The Court does not think sanctions are justified where, as here, the moving party makes no meaningful attempt to meaningfully resolve the dispute.

Conclusion

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is MOOT.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) is DENIED.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is MOOT.

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is MOOT.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set Two) is DENIED.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2023                               ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.