Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 23STCV21111, Date: 2024-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV21111, Date: 2024-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV21111 Hearing Date: September 13, 2024 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: September 13, 2024 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE: State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Computer Institute of Technology

CASE NO.: 23STCV21111

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

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

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff State Compensation Insurance Fund

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Computer Institute of Technology

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is a fraud action that was filed on August 31, 2023. Plaintiff alleges Defendant submitted invoices for reimbursement for job training without disclosing that the training was being offered in Spanish and without first securing approval to conduct the training in Spanish.

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

TENTATIVE RULING:

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

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

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

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories propounded to Defendant.

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.)

Defendant served its initial responses to the discovery at issue on this motion on May 24, 2024. (Declaration of Gary R. Soliman ISO Mot. ¶ 6.) During the subsequent meet-and-confer process, the parties twice agreed to extend the time to bring this motion, first to July 22, 2024, and then to August 5, 2024. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8; Exh. E.) This motion was filed and served on August 5, 2024. The 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).)

The Declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel states that counsel for the parties met and conferred on June 21, 2024, then on July 3, 2024, and then again on July 18, 2024. (Soliman Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.) The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has satisfied its statutory meet-and-confer obligations.

Analysis

Plaintiff purports to move to compel further responses to special interrogatories propounded to Defendant. Neither Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion nor the supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities identify which responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories are at issue. That said, the Separate Statement in support of the Motion references only Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 3. As the express purpose of a Separate Statement is to set forth in a single document all information necessary to understand the dispute on a given discovery motion, the Court construes this motion as pertaining only to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 3. (See Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(c).)

Plaintiff served discovery requests, including these interrogatories, on Defendant via email on March 20, 2024. (Soliman Decl. Exh. A.) Defendant’s responses were provided, pursuant to an agreed-upon extension, on May 22, 2024. (Id. Exh. C.) Special Interrogatory No. 1 asked Defendant to identify all persons and their job titles whom Defendant, or any of its affiliated entities or individuals, employed as an employee or independent contractor since October 5, 2017. (Plaintiff’s Exh. C. No. 1.) Interrogatory No. 3 asked Defendant to identify all persons between January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2022 who enrolled in, attended, or completed a training class, course, or program offered by Defendant. (Id. Exh. C. No. 3.) In response to both interrogatories, Defendant asserted a series of boilerplate objections for overbreadth, undue burden, ambiguity, irrelevance, and invading privacy rights. (Id. Exh. C. Nos. 1, 3.) Defendant also objected to Interrogatory No. 3 as compound.

In opposition, Defendant first contends that it was not properly served with the motion because Attorney Kevin Kay never received a copy of the motion. The Court is not persuaded. Defendant’s papers throughout this action have listed Lawrence Ecoff of Ecoff Campain & Kay, LLP as the lead attorney on this matter, and Attorney Ecoff is expressly named on the proof of service. (See Motion POS.) That one attorney for Defendant’s counsel did not receive a copy of the moving papers does not establish the motion was not served.

Turning to the substance of the motion, Defendant does not endeavor to justify its objections to these responses, but instead asserts that supplemental responses were served on August 7, 2024. (Declaration of Kevin T. Kay ISO Opp. ¶ 4.) In reply, Plaintiff contends that the supplemental responses are inadequate. As the responding party to interrogatories, Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the propriety of its responses, including any supplemental responses. (See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) By failing to include a copy of the supplemental responses, Defendant has not carried that burden. Further, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that its objections to these responses were proper. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order compelling further responses.

Sanctions

Plaintiff also purports to request sanctions in connection with this motion but the notice of motion does not specify the party or attorney against whom sanctions are sought, in direct violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040. The Court is therefore without authority to award sanctions on this motion, as to do so would constitute a violation of Defendant and its counsel’s due process rights.

Conclusion

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

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for production propounded to Defendant.

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.)

Meet and Confer

Good Cause

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to four requests for production propounded to Defendant. Plaintiff propounded these requests on March 20, 2024. (Soliman Decl. Exh. A.) These requests seek (1) contracts in effect from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2022 between Defendant and any individual employed as an employee or independent contractor; (2) all contracts in effect for the same period between Defendant and any individual who enrolled in, attended, or completed a training class, course, or program Defendant offered; (3) all non-privileged documents Defendant sent to the California Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE); and (4) all non-privileged documents since October 5, 2017 relating to any communication between Defendant and the BPPE. (Soliman Decl. Exh. C.) These materials are facially related to the allegations in the Complaint, and for that reason, Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for these requests.

Defendant’s Responses

Defendant responded to each request for production with a series of boilerplate objections for, inter alia, vagueness, irrelevance, and violation of privacy rights and attorney-client privilege. In opposition, Defendant does not endeavor to justify these objections. Instead, Defendant asserts that it provided supplemental responses on August 7, 2024, offering arguments substantially identical to those asserted in regards to the special interrogatories. Thus, for the same reasons discussed above, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to justify its objections and failed to demonstrate that it has served a code-compliant supplemental response. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order compelling a further response.

Sanctions

Plaintiff also purports to request sanctions in connection with this motion, but again the notice of motion does not specify the party or attorney against whom sanctions are sought, in direct violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040. The Court is therefore without authority to award sanctions on this motion, as to do so would constitute a violation of Defendant and its counsel’s due process rights.

Conclusion

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

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

CONCLUSION:

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

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

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

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2024 ___________________________________

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.