Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 23STCV22433, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

On January 24, 2024, Defendant Ray Davis served Plaintiff Tina Sabbagh with Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Product of Documents (Set One). (Kavarian Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff served responses on April 5, 2024. (Kavarian Decl. ¶ 4.) After meet-and-confer efforts, Plaintiff served supplemental responses on June 11, 2024. (Kavarian Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff did not substantively respond to additional efforts to meet and confer about the responses and did not respond to a request for Plaintiff’s portion of the Joint Statement. (Kavarian Decl. ¶¶ 7-13 & Exs. 2-4.)

A party may move to compel a further response to interrogatories if the demanding party deems an answer to be evasive or incomplete, if an exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted or inadequate, or if objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Each category of discovery (Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories) should have been filed as a separate motion, with separate filing fees and hearing reservations. Despite being scheduled as only one motion and one hearing, the total substance is that of two motions. This unfairly allows Defendant to take only one hearing reservation (instead of two) and results in an inaccurate projection and accounting of the Court’s workload, inconveniencing both the Court and other litigants. All parties are ordered not to do this again and are warned that continued action of this type may result in monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5.

For a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories, the movant must meet and confer with the responding party and file a Separate Statement or follow the Court’s alternative method of outlining the disputes. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(2).) This Department requires the parties to follow the procedures outlined in Exhibit A of Department 48’s Courtroom Information (available on the Court’s website) and file a Joint Statement.

Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to respond and contribute to the Joint Statement is a violation of this Court’s required procedures. Future violations by any party may be subject to monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5.

In the absence of a written agreement between the parties, a motion to compel further responses to requests for production, interrogatories, or requests for admissions must be filed within 45 days after the insufficient response. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c), 2033.290, subd. (c).) This deadline is jurisdictional and “renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409-1410.)

After Plaintiff’s June 11, 2024 supplemental responses, Defendant’s motion was due no later than July 26, 2024. Defendant did not file his motion until July 31, 2024.[1] There is no evidence of a written agreement between the parties to extend the deadline for filing a motion. Accordingly, the Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the late motion.

D. The Court Expects the Parties to Fully Comply With the Discovery Act and Act in Good Faith.

Although the Court cannot rule on the merits, the Court has read the motion and Joint Statement and believes they may foreshadow future discovery issues in this action.

The parties are reminded that responses to interrogatories “shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and must be answered to the extent possible if a complete answer cannot be provided. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subds. (a)-(b).) The responding party must make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information if they do not have sufficient personal knowledge. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).)

A code-compliant response to a form interrogatory includes responses to all sub-parts. In response to a request to identify supporting documents, it is not sufficient to state, “Please see response to request production of documents.” The response must specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify the documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.)

All complaints must have some factual basis. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10, subd. (a)(1).) Therefore, when a complaint alleges that a defendant violated specific statutes, it is to be expected that the defendant will request all facts upon which those allegations are based. It is inappropriate for a plaintiff to respond, “I’m not a lawyer, please see CCP 1940.2(a)(2)(3),” as Plaintiff responded to Special Interrogatory No. 40 (and similarly responded to Nos. 43, 46, and 49). Even if information is known only by counsel, that information must be disclosed in response to a proper interrogatory addressed to the party. (Smith v. Superior Court In and For San Joaquin County (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6, 12.)

Plaintiff’s responses to these interrogatories are unacceptable and not the quality of responses expected from any party, especially not from a party represented by counsel.

The Court expects all parties to participate in discovery in good faith and to provide statutorily compliant responses to written discovery. The Court may impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process, including sanctions for making evasive responses to discovery. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2023.030.)

A Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Defendant’s Payment of Additional Motion Filing Fee is scheduled for March 12, 2025 at 9:00 a.m.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] When sending his portion of the Joint Statement to Plaintiff on July 23, 2024, Defendant noted that he was “unable to reserve a hearing date for this discovery motion at the moment because the LA Court Reservation System is down due to a recent security breach.” (Kavarian Decl., Ex. 4.) However, it is clear that Defendant’s untimely filing was not the result of this technical limitation because Defendant requested Plaintiff’s response by end-of-day on July 30, 2024—after Defendant’s motion deadline.