Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV13312, Date: 2025-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13312    Hearing Date: April 14, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     April 14, 2025                        TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         6380 Quebec LLC v. Easy Financial, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                 23STCV13312           

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Easy Financial, LLC (Filed in Case No. 24STCV09939)

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Pacific Capital Quebec I, LLC (filed in Case No. 23STCV13312)

CASE HISTORY:

·         06/09/23: Complaint filed.

·         04/12/24: Complaint filed [Pacific Capital Quebec I LLC v . 6380 Quebec LLC, et al. Case No. 24STCV09939]

·         05/03/24: First Amended Complaint filed.

·         10/28/24: Cases deemed related. This case designated as lead case.

·         02/07/25: Cross-Complaint filed by Charles McLaurin as to Pacific Capital Quebec I, LLC in related case.

·         03/28/25: Stipulation to consolidate cases entered. This case designated as lead case.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is one of several consolidated real property actions. The Plaintiffs in the various actions allege that the Defendants and the other Plaintiffs conspired to wrongfully foreclose on a parcel of real property.

Defendant Easy Financial, LLC moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories propounded to Plaintiff Pacific Capital Quebec, I, LLC, and for sanctions.

//

//         

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

            Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant Easy Financial, LLC moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories propounded to Plaintiff Pacific Capital Quebec, I, LLC, and for sanctions.

Legal Standards

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.

Timeliness

A motion to compel a further response must be noticed within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental 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), 2031.310(c); see also Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409; Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685.) Otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel further responses. (Id.) The 45-day time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1410.)

Defendant served the requests at issue on December 13, 2024. (Declaration of Benjamin Donel ISO Mot. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff served initial responses pursuant to an agreed-upon extension on February 12, 2025. (Id. ¶¶ 9-10.) Defendant served and filed this motion on March 5, 2025, well within the 45-day period. This motion is timely.

//

Meet and Confer

A party making a motion to compel further responses must 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, 2030.310(b).) 

Defendant’s counsel states that he sent a single letter outlining the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s objection-only responses on February 17, 2025 and demanding further responses by February 21, 2025. (Id.¶ 11; Exh. A.) Defendant’s counsel offers no further detail beyond the assertion that Plaintiff’s counsel “unilaterally decided that he would provide responses on March 14, 2025.” (Id. ¶ 12.) A single letter with a four-day deadline for supplemental responses is not evidence of a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to informally resolve the issues presented by the motion. Defendant has not complied with its statutory meet-and-confer obligations, nor shown that the motion could not have been averted by further efforts.

Analysis

            Defendant moves to compel further responses to 60 special interrogatories propounded to Plaintiff Pacific Capital Quebec I, LLC. Defendant’s first 21 interrogatories seek facts and documents supporting various specified paragraphs set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint. (See Plaintiff’s Exh. F [Special Interrogatories], Nos. 1-21.) Interrogatories 22 through 26 (totaling 8 interrogatories due to numbering two sets of interrogatories as numbers 23 through 25) seek facts, documents, and witnesses pertaining to payments pursuant to the loan agreements identified in the Complaint. (Exh. F. Nos. 22-26.) Interrogatories 27 through 53 seek additional facts and documents pertaining to specified causes of action and allegations in the Complaint. (Nos. 27-53.) Finally, Interrogatories Nos. 54 through 57 seek amounts of damages sought and Plaintiff’s method of calculation of those damages. (Id. Nos. 54-57.) In response to these interrogatories, Plaintiff served objection-only responses for, inter alia, vagueness and ambiguity, overbreadth, undue burden, privilege, and demanding expert opinions and legal conclusions. (See, e.g., Plaintiff’s Exh. G [Supplemental Responses] No. 1 p.2:16-24.)

            Plaintiff argues that its objections for vagueness and ambiguity are meritorious because the definitions employed by Defendant’s interrogatories are inconsistent with their usage in the requests themselves. For example, Plaintiff notes that while the bulk of the interrogatories reference specified paragraphs, causes of action, or claims for relief in “the COMPLAINT” (e.g., Plaintiff’s Exh. F. No. 1), the definition employed is “the lawsuit, Pacific Capital Quebec I, LLC v. 6380 Quebec LLC, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 24STCV09939.” (Id.)  Plaintiff argues that the term “lawsuit” conflicts with the ordinary definition of “complaint” which the interrogatories appear to contemplate, thus rendering the interrogatories vague and ambiguous and impossible to answer. Not so. An objection for ambiguity only lies where the interrogatory is so unclearly phrased as to be unintelligible. (See Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 428.) Moreover, a party responding to an interrogatory is obligated to attempt a good-faith response even where the interrogatory contains some ambiguity. (Deyo v. Kilborne (1975) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) The interrogatories here pertain to specified allegations in the pleadings and are not so unclear that Plaintiff could not reasonably respond. Plaintiff’s objections are evasive and without merit.

            Plaintiff also asserts that many of the interrogatories are unduly burdensome because they would require the preparation of an “exhaustive list of documents and witnesses.” This bare conclusion is not an adequate justification for an objection based on overbreadth or undue burden.

            Next, Plaintiff contends that it was not obligated to answer the final three interrogatories, misnumbered 55 through 57, because Defendant’s supporting declaration justifying a total of 57 interrogatories did not account for the misnumbering and for the true number of 60 total interrogatories. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.030, a party is entitled as of right to only 35 special interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.030(a)-(b).) A party may only propound more than 35 special interrogatories if the interrogatories are accompanied by a declaration justifying the additional interrogatories in the manner and form prescribed by statute. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.040 – 2030.050.) Absent such a declaration, a responding party “need only respond to the first 35 specially prepared interrogatories served if that party states an objection to the balance, under Section 2030.240, on the ground that the limit has been exceeded.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.030(c) [emphasis added].) Plaintiff did not state such an objection in its responses and is therefore not entitled to assert that objection here. (See, e.g., Plaintiff’s Exh. G Nos. 55-57.)

            As to the remaining objections, as Plaintiff has not addressed those objections in the opposition to this motion, Plaintiff has conceded that the objections are not justified.

            As a final matter, Plaintiff also offers proposed supplemental responses which it asserts are sufficient to resolve this dispute. However, Plaintiff’s proposed responses contain many of the same unmeritorious objections which are the subject of this motion. (See, e.g., Plaintiff’s Exh. G. No. 1.) The proposed responses are therefore not sufficient to obviate the issues presented in this motion.

            The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit and Defendant is entitled to further substantive responses devoid of objections.

Sanctions

            Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff and its counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $4,500.

The Court is authorized 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 Civ. Proc. § 2023.030.) Sanctions are mandatory against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(d).)

In light of Defendant’s failure to engage in a good-faith effort to informally resolve this dispute, the Court finds that the imposition of monetary sanctions would be unjust. The Court therefore refuses to award sanctions.

CONCLUSION:

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

            Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

            Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  April 14, 2025                                    ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.