Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case BC696497 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: BC696497, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC696497 Hearing Date: January 30, 2023 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: January 30, 2023 JUDGMENT: September 15, 2021

CASE: Adriana Duarte v. SMG Cars Inc., et al.

CASE NO.: BC696497

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS x2

MOVING PARTY: Judgment Creditor/Plaintiff Adriana Duarte

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1)(2) No response on eCourt as of 1/30/23.

CASE HISTORY:

· 03/05/18: Complaint filed.

· 09/07/18: Dismissal entered as to Defendant Ker Lu.

· 09/15/21: Judgment entered for Plaintiff.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This was an employment action in which Plaintiff alleged various Labor Code violations, a PAGA claim, and unfair business practices. Plaintiff had worked for Defendants as an “auto broker” and alleged that she was misclassified as an independent contractor.

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories propounded to Defendants/Judgment Debtors SMG Cars, Inc. and Clyde Yeroomian.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Judgment Creditor’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from Judgment Debtor Clyde Yeroomian is GRANTED.

Judgment Creditor’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from Judgment Debtor SMG Cars, Inc. is GRANTED.

Judgment Debtors are ordered to serve verified, code-compliant supplemental responses on within 20 days of the date of this order.

Judgment Creditor’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Further Responses (Clyde Yeroomian)

Judgment Creditor moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories propounded to Judgment Debtor Clyde Yeroomian.

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.)

Judgment Creditor states that Judgment Debtor’s responses were served by email on September 6, 2022. (Declaration of Armen Manasserian ISO Mot. ¶ 9 Exh. 3.) The statutory deadline for this motion was therefore Tuesday, October 25, 2022. Judgment Creditor states that Judgment Debtor’s counsel agreed to extend the deadline to file these motions to November 14, 2022. (Id. ¶¶12- 15.) The initial declaration does not provide evidence of a written agreement between the parties providing this extension. However, Judgment Creditor’s supplemental declaration in support of this motion includes the email correspondence in which the parties agreed to extend the time to filing this motion to November 14, 2022. (Supplemental Declaration of Armen Manasserian ISO Mot. Exh. 6.) As the motion was filed on November 14, 2022, 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).)

Judgment Creditor has provided a declaration stating that Judgment Creditor attempted to meet and confer with Judgment Debtor on October 17, 2022 by sending a meet and confer letter. (Masserian Decl. ¶¶ 12-13, Exh. 4.) No response was received. (Id. ¶ 14.) The Court therefore finds that Judgment Creditor has satisfied the statutory meet and confer requirement.

No Separate Statement

Judgment Creditor has not included a separate statement in support of this motion. California Rule of Court Rule 3.1345 requires a party moving to compel further responses to interrogatories to file a separate statement providing all the information necessary to understand each discovery requests and the responses that are at issue.

The Court would be within its discretion to deny this motion outright for failure to comply with the separate statement requirement. However, in the body of the motion, Judgment Creditor sets forth the essential meaning of the 21 interrogatories at issue, as required by rule 3.1345(c)(1), the complete text of the identical response to each of the 21 interrogatories, as required by rule 3.1345(c)(2), and a statement of the reasons to compel further responses, as required by rule 3.1345(c)(3). Judgment creditor has also included copies of the requests and responses. (Masserian Decl. Exh. 2.) The Court will overlook the failure to provide a separate statement on the grounds that the body of the motion sufficiently satisfies the requirements of the separate statement. The Court will therefore address the motion on its merits.

Analysis

Judgment Creditor moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories propounded to Judgment Debtor Clyde Yeroomian.

Judgment Creditor seeks to compel further responses from Judgment Debtor regarding (1) entities that Yeroomian owns, (2) the co-owners of those entities, (3) the managers of those entities, (4) the officers of those entities, (5) the directors of those entities, (6) persons to whom Yeroomian has transferred assets, (7) persons who have transferred assets to Yeroomian, (8) persons to whom Yeroomian has transferred ownership of any entity, (9) persons who owe money to Yeroomian, (10) persons who have transferred ownership of any entity to Yeroomian, (11) persons to whom Yeroomian has transferred ownership of real property, (12) persons who have transferred any interest in real property to Yeroomian, (13) Yeroomian’s bank accounts, (14) Yeroomian’s entities’ bank accounts, (15) Yeroomian’s gross revenues, (16) Yeroomian’s entities’ gross revenues, (17) Yeroomian’s securities, (18) Yeroomian’s entities’ securities, (19) persons with knowledge of Yeroomian’s assts, (20) persons with knowledge of Yeroomian’s entities’ assets, and (21) agreements in which Yeroomian has had a financial interest. (Motion p. 5:27-6:11; Masserian Decl. Exh. 2.)

In response to each of the 21 interrogatories, Judgment Debtor provided the same response:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad as to time and scope, and unintelligible. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it fails to describe with reasonable particularity the information or category of information sought. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that is seeks confidential or propriety information. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the right to privacy. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the United States and California Constitutions. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and intended solely to harass or maim Defendant.

(Masserian Decl. Exh. 2.) As Judgment Debtor is the objecting party, the burden rests upon Judgment Debtor to justify these objections. However, Judgment Debtor has not opposed this motion, and has therefore failed to do so. The Court therefore finds that Judgment Creditor is entitled to an order compelling further responses to these interrogatories.

Sanctions

Judgment Creditor 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 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.

Judgment Creditor requests monetary sanctions in connection with this motion against Judgment Debtor exclusively. Responding to discovery requests with boilerplate objections and then failing to oppose a discovery motion, as is the case here, appears to the Court to be conduct properly attributed to Judgment Debtor’s counsel, not Judgment Debtor directly. However, as sanctions were not requested against Judgment Debtor’s counsel, the imposition of sanctions against them would threaten the due process rights of Judgment Debtor’s counsel. The Court therefore concludes that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust in these circumstances.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Judgment Creditor’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from Judgment Debtor Clyde Yeroomian is GRANTED.

Judgment Debtor is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant supplemental responses within 20 days of the date of this order.

Judgment Creditor’s request for sanctions in connection with this motion is DENIED.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (SMG Cars, Inc.)

Judgment Creditor moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories propounded to Judgment Debtor SMG Cars, Inc.

Legal Standard

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:

Meet and Confer

No Separate Statement

The Court would be within its discretion to deny this motion outright for failure to comply with the separate statement requirement. However, in the body of the motion, Judgment Creditor sets forth the essential meaning of the 21 interrogatories at issue, as required by rule 3.1345(c)(1), the complete text of the identical response to each of the 21 interrogatories, as required by rule 3.1345(c)(2), and a statement of the reasons to compel further responses, as required by rule 3.1345(c)(3). Judgment creditor has also included copies of the requests and responses. (Masserian Decl. Exh. 2.) The Court will thus overlook the failure to provide a separate statement on the grounds that the body of the motion sufficiently satisfies the requirements of the separate statement. The Court will therefore address the motion on its merits.

Analysis

Judgment Creditor moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories propounded to Judgment Debtor SMG Cars, Inc.

Judgment Creditor seeks to compel further responses from Judgment Debtor regarding (1) entities that SMG owns, (2) owners of SMG, (3) persons to whom SMG has transferred assets, (4) persons who have transferred assets to SMG, (5) persons who owe money to SMG, (6) persons to whom SMG has transferred ownership of any entity, (7) persons who have transferred ownership of any entity to SMG, (8) SMG’s ownership of real property, (9) SMG’s transfers of any interest in real property, (10) transfers of any interest in real property to SMG, (11) SMG’s ownership of motor vehicles, boats, watercraft, airplanes and other vehicles, (12) SMG’s purchases of the same, (13) SMG’s sales of the same, (14) SMG’s financing of the same, (15) SMG’s leasing of the same, (16) SMG’s bank accounts, (17) SMG’s safe deposit boxes, (18) SMG’s gross revenues, (19) SMG’s securities, (20) persons with knowledge of SMG’s assets, and (21) agreements in which SMG has had a financial interest. (Motion p. 5:27-6:11; Masserian Decl. Exh. 2.)

In response to each of the 21 interrogatories, Judgment Debtor provided the same response:

Sanctions

Judgment Creditor requests sanctions in connection with this motion.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Judgment Creditor’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from Judgment Debtor SMG Cars, Inc. is GRANTED.

Judgment Debtor is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant supplemental responses within 20 days of the date of this order.

Judgment Creditor’s request for sanctions in connection with this motion is DENIED.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Judgment Creditor’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from Judgment Debtor Clyde Yeroomian is GRANTED.

Judgment Creditor’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from Judgment Debtor SMG Cars, Inc. is GRANTED.

Judgment Debtors are ordered to serve verified, code-compliant supplemental responses on within 20 days of the date of this order.

Judgment Creditor’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 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.