Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 20STCP04198, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: May 22, 2023 TRIAL DATE: June 27, 2023

CASE: Long Z. Liu v. City of Baldwin Park, et al.

CASE NO.: 20STCP04198

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL FUTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: (1)(2) City of Baldwin Park, erroneously sued as Baldwin Park Police Department and Baldwin Park City Hall

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) No response on eCourt as of 5/17/23 (2) Plaintiff Long Z. Liu

CASE HISTORY:

12/20/20: Petition filed
12/06/22: First Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This was a petition for writ of mandamus. Plaintiff now alleges that Defendants engaged in a criminal conspiracy to illegally tow vehicles and force their owners to pay extortionate fees to retrieve the vehicles from impoundment. Plaintiff alleges that he was personally injured and his civil rights violated when his vehicle was allegedly unlawfully towed.

Defendant City of Baldwin Park moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production propounded to Plaintiff, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED IN PART with respect to Interrogatories Nos. 37, 40, 91, 94, and 95, and otherwise DENIED. Plaintiff is to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections on or before May 26, 2023.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant supplemental responses and responsive documents without objections on or before May 26, 2023.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Defendant City of Baldwin Park moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories propounded to Plaintiff.

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, Plaintiff served his responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories on March 10, 2023 by email. (Declaration of Robert N. Tafoya ISO Mot. ¶ 5, Exh. 2.) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1010.6 and 1013, the deadline to file this motion was Wednesday, April 26, 2023, the date this motion was filed. 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).)

Defendant’s only evidence of any attempt to meet and confer before filing this motion is a meet and confer letter sent to Plaintiff’s counsel on April 11, 2023. (Tafoya Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 3.) Although the body of the moving papers states that no response was ever received, there is no corresponding statement in the declaration. This showing is therefore not sufficient to satisfy Defendant’s meet and confer obligations. However, as the parties have subsequently met and conferred and partially resolved the issues on this motion, the Court will overlook this defect and address the remaining issues on their merits.

Outstanding Items

Pursuant to the Court’s April 28, 2023 Minute Order, the parties met and conferred regarding what discovery items remained outstanding. According to Defendant’s Report Re: Outstanding Discovery Issues filed May 15, 2023, Plaintiff agreed to provide supplemental responses to most of the special interrogatories at issue here, and the only interrogatories remaining are Interrogatory Nos. 7, 37, 40, 91, 94, 95, 109, 110, and 111. The Court will therefore address these interrogatories only.

Analysis

Defendant moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 7, 37, 40, 91, 94, 95, 109, 110, and 111.

Special Interrogatory No. 7

This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to state all facts supporting Plaintiff’s contention that each of the Defendants is the agent, joint venture, or employee of the others and were acting within the scope of that relationship with the advance knowledge, acquiescence, or ratification of the remaining Defendants. (Tafoya Decl. Exh. 1. No. 7.) In response, Plaintiff stated:

All Defendants participated in this joint scheme to increase the amount of tows in the City of Baldwin Park. Mayor Lozano signed towing contracts with exorbitant fees and selected Hadley Tow as one of their towing providers in order to partner with them to rack up towing fees. Hadley Tow worked to tow cars in violation of the law in order to increase not only their own profit, but also the profit of the other agents. Hadley Tow Employees knowingly tow vehicles in violation of relevant towing laws to promote this scheme. The police officers allow such tows to happen, as they did in this case, because they are participants of the grand scheme to increase towing revenue for the City, Hadley, and the Police Department. Discovery is ongoing, and Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response.

(Tafoya Decl. Exh. 2. No. 7.) Defendant contends that this answer is not responsive to the interrogatory. The Court does not agree with Defendant. Plaintiff’s response states the factual basis for his agency theory asserted against the Defendants. A further response to this interrogatory is not required.

Special Interrogatory Nos. 37, 40

Interrogatory No. 37 asks Plaintiff to state all facts supporting the contention that 15,247 cars were impounded in Baldwin Park within a 5-year period, setting a record for impounds in the United States. (Tafoya Decl. Exh. 1 No. 37.) No. 40 then asks Plaintiff to state all facts supporting the contention that the impoundment of these vehicles resulted in revenues of $12 million. (Id. No. 40.) In response to these requests, Plaintiff objected that the information is equally available to Defendant, and reserved the right to supplement the requests on the basis that discovery was ongoing. (Id. Exh. 2. Nos. 37, 40.)

As Plaintiff has not opposed this motion, Plaintiff has failed to justify these objections. Further, Plaintiff is obligated to make a reasonable effort to obtain the information sought, and, if unable to do so, must state why and what efforts were made to obtain that information. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(c), Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782.) These responses are not code-compliant, and further responses are warranted.

Special interrogatory Nos 91, 94, 95

Interrogatory No. 91 asks Plaintiff to identify all towing services which charge only $45 for towing. (Tafoya Decl. Exh. 1. No. 91.) Similarly, Interrogatory Nos. 94 and 95 asks Plaintiff to state all facts and identify all persons with knowledge supporting the contention that other towing services “charge a flat rate of $70-75 for the hook up.” (Id. Nos. 94-95.) In response to each of these interrogatories, Plaintiff stated “Discovery and investigation is ongoing, and Responding Party reserves the right to supplement this response as facts become available.” (Id. Exh. 2. Nos. 91, 94-95.)

Defendant contends that these responses are evasive, and the Court agrees. Plaintiff is obligated to make a reasonable effort to obtain the information sought, and, if unable to do so, must state why and what efforts were made to obtain that information. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(c), Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782.) These responses are not code-compliant, and further responses are warranted.

Special Interrogatory Nos. 109-111.

Interrogatory Nos. 109-111 ask Plaintiff to identify the handbook, rules, and bylaws for Plaintiff’s HOA. (Tafoya Decl. Exh. 1. Nos. 109-111.) In response, Plaintiff objected to each interrogatory as vague and ambiguous as to the phrase “Your HOA,” but then stated that Plaintiff is not currently governed by an HOA. (Id. Exh. 2. Nos. 109-111.)

Defendant contends that these answers are nonresponsive and evasive. The Court disagrees. Although Plaintiff does not justify these objections, as no opposition to this motion was filed, the responses themselves are nonetheless full and complete responses to an inquiry regarding the identity of any governing documents concerning an HOA to which Plaintiff belongs. Plaintiff has stated that he does not belong to any HOA, and thus, it follows that there are no documents to be identified. Further responses are not required.

Sanctions

Defendant also requests sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel, jointly and severally. As Defendant is not the prevailing party on about half of the issues raised in this motion, Defendant is not entitled to sanctions.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED IN PART with respect to Interrogatories Nos. 37, 40, 91, 94, and 95, and otherwise DENIED. Plaintiff is to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections on or before May 26, 2023.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

Defendant City of Baldwin Park moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production (Set One) propounded to Plaintiff.

Legal Standards

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.)

Meet and Confer

Late Opposition

Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s opposition papers as untimely. Plaintiff filed an opposition to this motion on May 11, 2023. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b), this opposition was due nine court days before the hearing on May 22, 2023. Plaintiff’s opposition was therefore due on May 9, 2023. This briefing is therefore untimely. However, as Defendant has shown no prejudice from this late filing, the Court will exercise its discretion to consider the merits of the opposition.

Analysis

Pursuant to the Court’s April 28, 2023 Minute Order, the parties met and conferred regarding what discovery items remained outstanding. According to Defendant’s Report Re: Outstanding Discovery Issues filed May 15, 2023 and dated May 10, 2023, Plaintiff agreed to supplement the responses to the Requests for Production, but requested a two-week extension to provide those responses. That extension, according to Defendant, was granted. (May 15 2023 Report.) At the same time, Defendant filed a reply brief dated May 15, 2023 requesting that the Court order Plaintiff to provide supplemental responses within five days of the hearing. As the discovery cutoff date is Friday, May 26, 2023, one day earlier, the Court construes this request as a request that Plaintiff provide responses by no later than the cutoff, thereby extending the time to provide supplemental responses and responsive documents. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.020.)

As Plaintiff’s opposition confirms the parties’ agreement regarding supplemental responses to these requests, and states that, by the time of this hearing, supplemental responses will be provided, the Court will enter an order conforming to this agreement between the parties.

Sanctions

Defendant also requests sanctions in connection with this motion.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 authorizes the Court to impose monetary sanctions on any attorney engaging in the misuse of the discovery process by requiring that attorney to pay the reasonable expenses incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(h) requires the Court to impose sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or 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.

Defendant is correct that the initial responses, which did not specify which documents produced were responsive to each request, leaving aside that, according to Defendant, no responsive documents were initially produced at all. (See, generally, Declaration of Robert Tafoya ISO Mot. Exh. 2.) However, the purpose of monetary sanctions under the Discovery Act is to incentivize compliance with a party’s discovery obligations. As Plaintiff has stated an intention to do so on the record before this Court, the Court does not think it appropriate to sanction Plaintiff at this time.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant supplemental responses and responsive documents without objections on or before May 26, 2023.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

CONCLUSION:

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 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.