Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case 21STCV33463 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV33463, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33463 Hearing Date: December 19, 2022 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: December 19, 2022 TRIAL DATE: March 21, 2023

CASE: Andres Ramirez v. Alfredo Hernandez, et al.

CASE NO.: 21STCV33463

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

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

MOVING PARTY: (1)(2) Plaintiff Andres Ramirez

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1)(2) Defendant Alfredo Hernandez

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for breach of contract that was commenced on September 10, 2021. In his First Amended Complaint, filed on February 14, 2022, Plaintiff alleges that he contracted orally with Defendants for the sale of a parcel of real property. Plaintiff contends that Defendants did not pay him the entirety of the proceeds to which he was entitled under that agreement.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED in the amount of $861.65. Payment is to be made to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days of this order.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set One) is DENIED.

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

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

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

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 4, 5, 7, 13, 62, 118, and 119.

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 responses were served on September 28, 2022. (Declaration of Walter Saavedra ISO Mot. ¶ 3, Exh. C.) The parties did not agree in writing to any extension to the deadline to file this motion. (Id. ¶ 4.) 45 days after the date of service would be November 12, 2022. This motion was filed on November 8, 2022 so it was 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, 2031.300 (b)(1).)

Plaintiff’s counsel states that Plaintiff sent meet and confer letters to Defendant’s counsel, outlining the dispute with these discovery responses. (Saavedra Decl. ¶ 4.) The declaration does not state if any response was given, but provides an email exchange showing that Plaintiff offered to stipulate to an informal discovery conference, and Defendant ignored this request. (Id. Exh. D.) The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has complied with the statutory meet and confer requirements.

Analysis

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 4, 5, 7, 13, 62, 118, and 119.

1. Interrogatory No. 4.

Special Interrogatory No. 4 asks the Respondent to state all communications the Respondent had with the Propounding party immediately after the subject property was purchased. (Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 4.) In response, Defendant objected as overbroad, vague, and burdensome, and states that all of the communications made with Plaintiff were described in Response No.3, which addresses only communications before the subject property was purchased. (Plaintiff’s Exh. C. No. 4; see also No. 3.)

Defendant makes no effort to justify the objections raised in the response in the body of Defendant’s opposition. Further, a response incorporating, by reference, communications before the property was purchased, without more, is not responsive to an interrogatory concerning communications after the property was purchased. If no communications were made after the purchase, Defendant should so state. Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling further responses.

2. Interrogatory No. 5

Special Interrogatory No. 5 asks the Defendant to state in complete detail why Defendant asked the propounding party to cosign a house Respondent wished to purchase. (Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 5.) Defendant’s only response was to say “See Response No. 3.” (Plaintiff’s Exh. C. No. 5.) Defendant’s Response No. 3 is an extensive narrative of all his interactions with Plaintiff, responding to an interrogatory only concerning communications with Plaintiff. In the Court’s view, this is not properly responsive to this interrogatory. Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling further response that delineates the reasons why Defendant made his request to Plaintiff.

3. Interrogatory No. 7

Special Interrogatory No. 7 asks Defendant to state in complete detail all the terms of the oral agreement with the propounding party. (Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 7.) In response, Defendant referred to Response No. 3 and then provided an extensive, meandering narrative. (Plaintiff’s Exh. C. No. 7.) In the Court’s view, this response is evasive and non-responsive to the interrogatory. The interrogatory demands that Defendant set forth the terms of an oral agreement with the Plaintiff. It does not demand the entire history of Plaintiff’s interactions with Defendant. Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling a further response clearly setting forth the terms of any oral agreement.

4. Interrogatory No. 13.

Special Interrogatory No. 13 asks Defendant to state the amount of money that he put forward in a down payment on the property. (Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 13.) In response, Defendant only stated “I put down the entire down payment.” (Plaintiff’s Exh. C. No. 13.) This response is evasive and inadequate on its face. Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling a further response.

5. Interrogatory No. 61

Special Interrogatory No. 61 asks Defendant to state the name, address, and phone number of the real estate agent hired to sell the property. (Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 61.) Defendant provided the name and address of the real estate agent, but not the phone number. (Plaintiff’s Exh. C. No. 61.) This is not a full and complete response to the interrogatory. If Defendant is lacking any information sought, Defendant should so state rather than simply ignore portions of the interrogatory. Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling a further response.

6. Interrogatory Nos. 118 and 119

Special Interrogatory No. 118 seeks the contact information of the individual who prepared Defendant’s tax returns for 2018. (Plaintiff’s Exh. B. No. 118.) No. 119 seeks the identity of any documents showing the contact information of the individual who prepared Defendant’s tax returns for 2018. (Id. No. 119.) Defendant objected to both of these interrogatories on the basis of an invasion of privacy. (Plaintiff’s Exh. C. Nos. 118, 119.) However, Defendant makes no effort to justify these objections in its opposition papers. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order compelling further responses.

Sanctions

Both parties request 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 2030.300(d) 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.

As Plaintiff is the prevailing party on this motion, Plaintiff is the only party who is entitled to seek sanctions. Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,261.65 in connection with this motion, based on 1.5 hours of attorney time billed at a rate of $400 per hour, plus an additional 2.5 anticipated hours at the same rate, plus a $61.65 filing fee. (Saavedra Decl. ¶ 9.) With the exception of the anticipated hours, the Court finds that the amount requested is reasonable considering the relative simplicity of a motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions. The Court will therefore award the fees and costs actually billed in the amount of $861.65.

Conclusion

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

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED in the amount of $861.65

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

Plaintiff also moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1-3, 8, 12, 31, 32, 34-37, 40, 43-46, 50, 51, 54, 55, and 58-61.

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.)

Timing

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

Deficiency of Moving Papers

Plaintiff has provided a copy of the Requests for Production served on Defendant, and has Provided a copy of Defendant’s written responses. (See Plaintiff’s Exhs. B, C.) However, Plaintiff does not state what documents, if any, were produced in response to any of the requests, nor is there any production included with the moving papers. A review of Defendant’s responses shows that, as to certain responses at issue, responsive documents were identified. (See, e.g., Plaintiff’s Exh. C. No. 8.) As Plaintiff has not set forth the entirety of the production to establish what was or was not produced, the Court cannot rule on the sufficiency of the responses.

Sanctions

Both parties request 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 2031.300(c) 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.

Here, as Plaintiff is not the prevailing party, Plaintiff is not entitled to sanctions. However, as the motion fails on procedural grounds rather than on the merits, the Court finds that the imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff would not be justified by these facts. The Court therefore declines to award sanctions to either party.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set One) is DENIED.

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

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2022 ___________________________________

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.