Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case 21STCV14317 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 21STCV14317, Date: 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV14317 Hearing Date: July 27, 2022 Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE: July 27, 2022

CASE NAME: Salvador Duenas v. Law Offices of Vivian Szawarc, et al.

CASE NO.: 21STCV14317

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY – REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Law Offices of Vivian Szawarc, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of July 22, 2022.

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1. An order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 12-36

2. An order granting monetary sanctions to Defendants

TENTATIVE RULING:

1. Motion to Compel Further Responses as to Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED, as to Nos. 12-16, and 25-36

2. Motion to Compel Further Responses as to Requests for Production of Documents is DENIED, as to Nos. 17-24.

3. Request for Sanctions is GRANTED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Salvador Duenas (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Law Offices of Vivian Szawarc, Vivian Szawarc, Isabel Mena, and Tasha Afkham (“Defendants”). The complaint alleged one cause of action for general negligence. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants committed malpractice in regard to his immigration case.

Defendant Law Offices of Vivian Szawarc filed an Answer on June 25, 2021.

Defendant Tasha Afkham filed an Answer on February 9, 2022.

Defendant Isabel Mena filed an Answer on February 9, 2022.

Defendant Vivian Szawarc filed an Answer on February 9, 2022.

On February 24, 2022, Defendants filed three Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production of Documents.

LEGAL STANDARD

The propounding party may bring a motion to compel further responses to a demand for production if the propounding party deems that production is deficient, incomplete, or contains meritless objections. CCP § 2031.310(a). The legal burden to justify refusing or failing to provide discovery lies with the objecting party. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220).

The motion must be accompanied by a good-faith meet-and-confer declaration. CCP § 2031.310(b). “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate . . . involves the exercise of discretion.” (Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016). “The history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant. Judges have broad powers and responsibility to determine what measure and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstances.” Id.

CCP § 2031.310 provides the court shall apposes monetary sanctions against a person, party, or attorney that unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, unless that subject to sanction acted “with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.” CCP § 2023.010(h). The court “may impose a monetary sanction” against any attorney or party, or both, to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, if there has been a “misuse of the discovery process. CCP § 2023.030(a). “A trial court has broad discretion when imposing a discovery sanction.” (Lee v. Lee (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1559).

Meet and Confer:

The Declaration of Jose Rojas indicates that the Defendants propounded discovery on February 9, 2022. Plaintiff served responses on March 14, 2022. Defendant sent a meet and confer letter on March 17, 2022, with supplemental responses due on March 23, 2022. (Dec. Rojas ¶ 10, Ex. E). On April 19, 2022, Defendant sent another meet and confer letter after Plaintiff had failed to provide supplemental responses. The meet and confer letter indicated that the responses were due on April 22, 2022. (Id. at Ex. F).

Separate Statement

Under Rule 3.1345, a Separate Statement must include the request, the response, and why a further response is provided. Here, the Defendants’ Separate Statement has the required information.

Timely:

Under CCP § 2030.300, a party has 45 days after receipt of the verified responses to file a motion to compel further. Here, the verified responses were provided on March 14, 2022. (Dec. Rojas ¶ 10). 45 days after March 14, 2022 is April 28, 2022. The motion is timely.

ANALYSIS:

Defendant moves to compel the Plaintiff to provide further responses to Requests for Production, Nos. 12-36.

Under CCP § 2031.210, a party may object to the particular demand for “inspection, copying, testing, or sampling. The Plaintiff provided the following objection to each of the requests RPDs:

Objection. This request is generally vague and ambiguous, and is vague and ambiguous as to time. This request also seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request further impermissibly seeks to invade the Responding Party’s right of privacy. Furthermore, this request seeks information which is already known, or at least equally available to, the Propounding Party and her counsel. This request also calls for speculation, is compound, is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive, lacks foundation, and calls for a legal conclusion and/or expert opinion and/or other application of fact to law. In addition, this request requires Responding Party to apply facts to law before all facts are known to him, and before Responding Party has completed discovery necessary to formulate a complete response. This request also seeks to invade information protected by the attorney-client and/or work product doctrine. Responding party also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks confidential information, and/or confidential financial information, and/or information that is protected from disclosure by Revenue and Tax Code section 19282. Cobb v. Sup. Ct. (1979) 99 CA3d 543, Coate v. Sup. Ct. (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 113; Panzalas v. Sup. Ct. (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 499; Alpine v. Sup. Ct. (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45; Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) Cal.2d 509.

Defendant contends that these objections are boiler-plate, inappropriate, and unsatisfactory. The responses are incomplete and evasive.

Nos. 12-16: documents which relate to earnings from 2017 to 2021

Defendant argues that these documents are relevant because Plaintiff claimed that he suffered loss of earnings as a result of Defendant’s conduct. These documents are necessary to evaluate the claimed damages. (Motion 8: 7-15). “Section 2017.010 and other statues governing discovery ‘must be construed liberally in favor or disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes of denial’” (Yelp Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1, 15). The objections raised by Plaintiff are not applicable. First, these requests are not vague or ambiguous. The request is clear; the documents pertain to earnings and the general meaning of earnings is not particularized. Additionally, these requests are directly relevant to the claims raised by Plaintiff. The issue of whether he lost several hundreds of thousands of dollars and will lose over one million in future damages can be evaluated and corroborated by these earning statements. Moreover, the objection regarding attorney-client privilege fails. “In general, when a party asserts the attorney-client privilege, that party has the burden of showing the preliminary facts necessary to support the privilege…. After this burden is met, or where there is no dispute concerning the preliminary facts, the burden shifts to the party opposing the privilege to show either the claimed privilege does not apply, an exception exists, or there has been an express or implied waiver. [Citation].” (Venture Law Group v. Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal. App. 4th 96, 102. There is nothing evident from earning statements that would be construed as containing attorney client communications.

Plaintiff must provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 12-16.

No. 17-24: State and Federal returns from 2017-2021

Defendant argues that these documents are directly relevant. Plaintiff placed his income at issue. Plaintiff claims hundreds of thousands of dollars in past earnings as well as over one million dollars in future earnings. Therefore, these documents corroborate these contentions. (Motion 8: 27 – 9: 3). While tax returns are ordinarily privileged, there are exceptions that constitute waiver of this privilege: “(1) there is an intentional relinquishment (Crest Catering Co. v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal.2d 274, 278 [42 Cal.Rptr. 110, 398 P.2d 150] ), (2) the ‘gravamen of [the] lawsuit is so inconsistent with the continued assertion of the taxpayer's privilege as to compel the conclusion that the privilege has in fact been waived’ (Wilson v. Superior Court, supra, 63 Cal.App.3d at p. 830 [134 Cal.Rptr. 130] ), or (3) a public policy greater than that of confidentiality of tax returns is involved (Miller v. Superior Court, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at p. 149 [139 Cal.Rptr. 521] ).” (Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 721). Here, tax returns could lead to admissible evidence that undermine Plaintiff’s claims regarding damages.

Requests for Further Responses as to Production of Documents Nos. 17-24 is GRANTED.

Nos. 25 and 26: Documents related to Plaintiff’s Relationship with Total Quality Logistics and income documents

These documents are relevant because Plaintiff claims a loss of earnings because of Defendant’s document. Prior to the incident, Plaintiff claims he was employed with Total Quality Logistics. Therefore, these documents are necessary to evaluate damages. The same reasoning for Nos. 12-16 above requires the Plaintiff to provide further responses. The objections fail; documents are necessary and relevant; attorney-client privilege does not apply to documents about Plaintiff’s former employer. Plaintiff claimed to have worked for Total Quality Logistics.

Plaintiff must provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 25-26.

No. 27: Documents related to Employment positions between January 1, 2017, until present

Similar to above, these documents concern Plaintiff’s employment status and all documents relating to that. The issues raised by Plaintiff’s claim are directly related to past and future earnings; Plaintiff claims he suffered loss of earnings because of Defendant’s conduct. The same reasoning for Nos. 12-16 above requires the Plaintiff to provide further responses. The objections fail; documents are necessary and relevant; attorney-client privilege does not apply employment positions that the Plaintiff had between 2017 and now. Plaintiff placed his employment directly at issue with the current matter; these documents are directly related to that issue.

Plaintiff must provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents No. 29.

No. 28: a copy of his permit to work in the United States

Defendant argues that this information is relevant because he is alleging malpractice by Defendants as it relates to his immigration status. Therefore, any documents that will corroborate whether Plaintiff had the legal ability to work in the United States are relevant to the current matter. The same reasoning for Nos. 12-16 above requires the Plaintiff to provide further responses. The objections fail; documents are necessary and relevant; attorney-client privilege does not apply to a document indicating that Plaintiff can work in the United States. Whether Plaintiff had the ability to work in the United States relates directly to Plaintiff’s claim for loss of past and future earnings.

Plaintiff must provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents No. 28.

No. 29: a copy of most recently issued California Driver’s License

Defendant contends that this information goes to whether the Plaintiff had the ability to work as a truck driver. The Plaintiff claims that the conduct of Defendant prevented him from continuing working as a truck driver and seeks damages. Therefore, these documents are directly relevant to the claims at issue. The same reasoning for Nos. 12-16 above requires the Plaintiff to provide further responses. The objections fail; documents are necessary and relevant; attorney-client privilege does not apply to a document indicating that Plaintiff has a Driver’s License. Whether Plaintiff had the ability to drive relates directly to Plaintiff’s claim for loss of job as a truck driver.

Plaintiff must provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents No. 29.

No. 30: documents that refer to ownership interest in commercial semi-trucks

Defendant argues that this information is relevant to the alleged damages. The Plaintiff contends that he will lose future income because he lost his semi-trucks. Determining if Plaintiff had any ownership interest in semi-trucks will help Defendant evaluate the “validity of Plaintiff’s alleged damages claim.” (Motion 11: 8-10). The same reasoning for Nos. 12-16 above requires the Plaintiff to provide further responses. The objections fail; documents are necessary and relevant; attorney-client privilege does not apply to a documents that relate to ownership interest. It is unlikely that there would be any attorney-client communications involved in these documents. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that he will lose future income because he lost his semi-trucks. (Motion 11: 8-9). Therefore, these documents will help Defendant evaluate these damages claims.

Plaintiff must provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents No. 30.

Nos. 31-35: Pay Stubs for years 2017-2021

Defendant contends that this information is directly relevant to the Plaintiff’s claims of loss of earnings. Plaintiff’s income was placed in issue by the Plaintiff when he claimed to have lost hundreds of thousands of past earnings and over one million in future earnings. These pay stubs will help evaluate these contentions. The same reasoning for Nos. 12-16 above requires the Plaintiff to provide further responses. The objections fail; documents are necessary and relevant; attorney-client privilege does not apply to pay stubs. There is unlikely to be any attorney-client communication on these documents. Again, these documents go to Plaintiff’s claim for loss of past and future income; these will assist in assessing damages. (Motion 11: 20-23).

Plaintiff must provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents Nos 31-35.

No: 36: documents refer to Plaintiff’s claimed inability to work

Plaintiff contends that because of the Defendant’s conduct, he is no longer able to work. As a result of this, Plaintiff has suffered damages and will lose future earnings because of this inability to work. These documents are directly related to the claims at issue. The same reasoning for Nos. 12-16 above requires the Plaintiff to provide further responses. The objections fail; documents are necessary and relevant; attorney-client privilege does not apply to documents that relate to Plaintiff’s claimed inability to work. Plaintiff claims to have lost work because of Defendant’s conduct; this will help Defendant to evaluate these claims, especially as it relates to damages.

Plaintiff must provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents No. 36.

Sanctions:

Under CCP § 2023.030, the court can impose monetary sanctions for the misuse of discovery. Additionally, the court can also impose sanctions under CCP § 2023.010. Defendant requests $1,635. This is based on an hourly rate of $175, with 4 hours preparing the Motions to Compel Supplemental Responses, and anticipatory 3 hours for reviewing the opposition and preparing the reply and another 2 preparing and attending the hearing. Additionally, the filing cost is $60. Because there was no opposition, the total requested amount is altered to $760.

Conclusion:

For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

Motion to Compel Further Responses as to Requests for Production of Documents within 30 days of service of this order is GRANTED, as to Nos. 12-36

Request for Monetary Sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel payable within 30 days of service of this order is GRANTED.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2022 __________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra

Judge of the Superior Court

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY – REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Law Offices of Vivian Szawarc, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of July 22, 2022.

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1. An order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to Requests for Admissions Nos. 5-35

2. An order granting monetary sanctions to Defendants

TENTATIVE RULING:

1. Motion to Compel Further Responses to the Requests for Admissions Nos. 5-35 is GRANTED.

2. Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Defendant Law Offices of Vivian Szawarc filed an Answer on June 25, 2021.

Defendant Tasha Afkham filed an Answer on February 9, 2022.

Defendant Isabel Mena filed an Answer on February 9, 2022.

Defendant Vivian Szawarc filed an Answer on February 9, 2022.

On February 24, 2022, Defendants filed three Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production of Documents.

Meet and Confer:

Separate Statement

Under Rule 3.1345, a Separate Statement must include the request, the response, and why a further response is provided. Here, the Defendants’ Separate Statement has the required information.

Timely:

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.290 provides the following:

(a) On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.

(b)(1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(2) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.

(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission.

(d) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney 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.

ANALYSIS:

Defendant request the court compel the Plaintiff to provide further responses to the Requests for Admissions, Set Two, Nos. 5-35. Specifically, Defendant argues that the responses are not code-compliant. These requests seek information about the Plaintiff’s ability to work in the United States, ability to operate a commercial semi-truck, immigration status, criminal history, employment as it relates to claimed damages, and emotional distress.

As demonstrated in the Separate Statement, the Plaintiff responded to each of the Requests for Admissions with the following objection:

Under CCP § 2033.210(b), a request for admission shall contain a response that either answers the requested admission or sets for an objection. Additionally, under CCP § 2033.230, if only part the answer is objectionable the remaining part must be answered. If the entire request is objected to, the specific ground must be set forth clearly.

However, the objections raised by Plaintiff is untenable. For example, RFA No. 5 states the following: “Admit that YOU do not have a valid commercial Driver License.” None of the above objections are appropriate. This question is directly relevant as this matter involves a legal malpractice matter, where Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s conduct prevented him from being employed as a semi-driver. (Sep. Stmt. 4: 1-4). Additionally, this request is not ambiguous, is not overly broad or burdensome. The Plaintiff’s boilerplate objections are not feasible for the Requests for Admissions. “Requests for admissions, on the other hand, are primarily aimed at setting at rest a triable issue so that it will not have to be tried. Thus, such requests, in a most definite manner, are aimed at expediting the trial. For this reason, the fact that the request is for the admission of a controversial matter, or one involving complex facts, or calls for an opinion, is of no moment. If the litigant is able to make the admission, the time for making it is during discovery procedures, and not at the trial.” (Cembrook v. Superior Court In and For City and County of San Francisco (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429). Additionally, under CCP § 2033.030, the party can request no more than 35 RFAs. Here, the argument that these requests are burdensome and oppressive fails. The Defendant propounded 35 admissions, in compliance with CCP § 2033.030. The remaining requests seek straight-forward, unambiguous questions pertaining to Plaintiff’s ownership of a license, employment history, criminal history, and legal services with Defendant. All the requests are relevant, do not involve privacy rights as the Plaintiff raises issues pertaining to employment.

Sanctions:

Under CCP § 2023.030, the court can impose monetary sanctions for the misuse of discovery. Additionally, the court can also impose sanctions under CCP § 2023.010. The Defendant requests $1,635.00. This is based on an hourly rate of $175, with 4 hours preparing the Motions to Compel Supplemental Responses, and anticipatory 3 hours for reviewing the opposition and preparing the reply and another 2 preparing and attending the hearing. Additionally, the filing cost is $60. The motion work is duplicative of the other two motions so the court awards sanctions of $410.

Conclusion:

For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

Motion to Compel Further Responses to the Requests for Admissions within 30 days of service of this order is GRANTED.

Request for Monetary Sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel payable within 30 days of service of this order is GRANTED.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2022 _________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra

Judge of the Superior Court

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY – SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Law Offices of Vivian Szawarc, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of July 22, 2022.

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1. An order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 34-62

2. An order granting monetary sanctions to Defendants

TENTATIVE RULING:

1. Motion to Compel Further Responses as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 34-53 is DENIED.

2. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories No. 54 is GRANTED.

3. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 55-62 is DENIED.

4. Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Defendant Law Offices of Vivian Szawarc filed an Answer on June 25, 2021.

Defendant Tasha Afkham filed an Answer on February 9, 2022.

Defendant Isabel Mena filed an Answer on February 9, 2022.

Defendant Vivian Szawarc filed an Answer on February 9, 2022.

On February 24, 2022, Defendants filed three Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production of Documents.

Meet and Confer:

Separate Statement

Under Rule 3.1345, a Separate Statement must include the request, the response, and why a further response is provided. Here, the Defendants’ Separate Statement has the required information.

Timely:

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that . . .”[a]n answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).)

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).

ANALYSIS:

Defendant request the court compel the Plaintiff to provide further responses to the Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 34-62

For Request Nos. 34-53, Plaintiff did not provide a response to the Interrogatories after the meet and confer. Therefore, Defendant should have moved for a Motion to Compel Responses, as under CCP § 2030.290, if a party fails to timely serve responses to interrogatories, the responding waives objections. Additionally, under subsection (b), the propounding party “may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” Therefore, without a response, these interrogatories should be contained in a motion to compel, not a motion to compel further, as there is no response that the Defendant can deem to be evasive, incomplete, or provides an objection without merit. Therefore, these requests are DENIED.

For Nos. 54-62, the Plaintiff responded with the following statement:

No. 54: identify documents that relate to income for 2021

Defendant contends that these documents are directly relevant. Plaintiff alleges past and future loss of wages, hundreds of thousands of dollars in past earnings and over a million in future earnings. Determining the Plaintiff’s income for 2021 goes directly to claims that were raised by Plaintiff. “Section 2017.010 and other statues governing discovery ‘must be construed liberally in favor or disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes of denial’” (Yelp Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1, 15). The objections raised by Plaintiff are not applicable. First, these requests are not vague or ambiguous. The request is clear; the request wants the Plaintiff to identify any and all documents that directly relate to income. Additionally, these requests are directly relevant to the claims raised by Plaintiff. The issue of whether he lost several hundreds of thousands of dollars and will lose over one million in future damages can be evaluated and corroborated by these documents. . Moreover, the objection regarding attorney-client privilege fails. “In general, when a party asserts the attorney-client privilege, that party has the burden of showing the preliminary facts necessary to support the privilege…. After this burden is met, or where there is no dispute concerning the preliminary facts, the burden shifts to the party opposing the privilege to show either the claimed privilege does not apply, an exception exists, or there has been an express or implied waiver. [Citation].” (Venture Law Group v. Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal. App. 4th 96, 102. There is nothing evident from identifying income documents that relate to income.

Plaintiff must provide further responses to Special Interrogatories No. 54.

Nos. 55-62: State whether you filed state and federal tax returns for 2017-2020

Defendant contends that this information is directly relevant to the claimed damages. Plaintiff’s income was placed directly at issue.

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 55-62 is GRANTED.

Sanctions:

Under CCP § 2023.030, the court can impose monetary sanctions for the misuse of discovery. Additionally, the court can also impose sanctions under CCP § 2030.300(d). Defendant requests $1,810.00. This is based on an hourly rate of $175, with 5 hours preparing the Motions to Compel Supplemental Responses, and anticipatory 3 hours for reviewing the opposition and preparing the reply and another 2 preparing and attending the hearing. Additionally, the filing cost is $60. However, the court finds substantial justification as to items no 34-53 so the court declines issuing sanctions.

Conclusion:

For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories No. 54-62 within 30 days of service of this order is GRANTED.

Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2022 __________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra

Judge of the Superior Cour