Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: BC495095, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.
If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.
2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.
3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
Case Number: BC495095 Hearing Date: April 5, 2024 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: April
5, 2024
CASE NAME: Jeanne
Haworth, et al. v. Noam Bouzaglou, et al.
CASE NO.: BC495095
MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs/Judgment
Creditors Jeanne Haworth, et al.
RESPONDING PARTY(S): None.
REQUESTED RELIEF:
Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors Jeanne Haworth, et al. seeks
an order compelling Defendant/Judgment Debtor Andrew J. Stern to (1) serve
responses without objections to Judgment Creditors Jeanne Haworth, Success
Trustee of the McGinty Family Revocable Trust Dated September 7, 2006 and
Kathleen McGinty, an Individual Interrogatories to Judgment Debtor Andrew J.
Stern (Set One); (2) serve responses without objections to Judgment Creditors
Jeanne Haworth, Success Trustee of the McGinty Family Revocable Trust Dated
September 7, 2006 and Kathleen McGinty, an Individual Requests for Production
of Document to Judgment Debtor Andrew J. Stern (Set One); (3) produce all
responsive documents; and (4) pay sanctions of $2,440.00 to Judgment Creditors.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED in part as to
Special Interrogatories Nos. 4, 7, 8, 13, and 18, and DENIED in part as to
Special Interrogatory No. 5.
Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED as to Request
for Production of Documents Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 9.
Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,440.00.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On November 2, 2012, Plaintiffs Jeanne Haworth, Successor
Trustee of the McGinty Family Revocable Trust Dated September 7, 2006 and
Kathleen McGinty (“Judgment Creditors”) filed a complaint against Defendants
Noam Bouzaglou; Ness Adam, Inc.; Andrew J. Stern (collectively “Judgment
Debtors”); and DOES 1 through 50.
On September 18, 2014, this Court entered Judgment on Jury
Verdict and Judgment & Order Cancelling Deed and Rescinding Contracts (the
“Judgment”) as to Judgment Debtors.
On January 24, 2024, Judgment Creditors filed a Motion to
Compel Further.
LEGAL STANDARD:
“Any party may obtain discovery . .
. by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be
answered under oath.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010, subd. (a).) “Within 30
days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories
are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the
propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has
shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party
the court has extended the time for response.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).)
“The party to whom interrogatories
have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each
interrogatory by any of the following: (1) An answer containing the information
sought to be discovered. (2) An exercise of the party's option to produce
writings. (3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.”¿(Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2030.210, subd. (a).)¿ “If the responding party does not have personal
knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so
state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the
information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where
the information is equally available to the propounding party.”¿(Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2030.220(c).)
“On receipt of a response to
interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a
further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following
apply: (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. (3)
An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”¿(Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2030.300, subd. (a).) “A motion under subdivision (a) [of CCP §
2030.300] shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section
2016.040.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) In addition, a separate
statement is required.¿(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(2).)
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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (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. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.310, subd. (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.)
“Unless notice of this motion is
given 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, the
propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the
interrogatories.”¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) “[T]he time
limitations set forth in section 2030 and section 2034, subdivision (a) [are]
mandatory and [when] not met, the trial court's order is in excess of its
jurisdiction.”¿ (Vidal Sassoon, Inc.
v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685.)
ANALYSIS:
Judgment Creditors seek further responses to Special
Interrogatories Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, and 18, and responsive documents to
Request for Production Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 9.
Meet and Confer
Efforts:
On or about
December 13, 2023, Judgment Creditors served Defendant Andrew J. Stern
(“Judgment Debtor”) with Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of
Documents. (Hinds Decl. § 4; Ex. B.) On
or about December 28, 2023, Judgment Debtor served his objections and responses
to the discovery requests. (Id. ¶ 5;
Ex. E.) As a result, Judgment Creditors sent a meet and confer letter on
January 1, 2024 to Judgment Debtors’ counsel to address the deficiencies of the
responses. (Id. ¶ 6; Ex. F.) The
parties exchanged communications and were unable to resolve these discovery
disputes. (Id.)
Timeliness:
According to the proof of service,
Judgment Debtor served his responses to the Special Interrogatories on December
28, 2023. Judgment Creditors filed this instant motion on January 24, 2024,
which is 17 days after being served with Judgment Debtor responses. Therefore,
this motion is timely because it was filed within 45-days of service of
verified responses.
Compel
Responses:
Judgment
Creditors argue Judgment Debtor’s responses are deficient because Judgment
Debtor refuses to provide requested information on his wife’s assets and
income. Judgment Creditors further argue Judgment Debtor and his wife have been
married and have lived in California throughout the trial of the underlying
matter, so Judgment Creditors have the right to investigate the community
property assets and income in order to assess what can be used to satisfy the
Judgment. Judgment Creditors also contend they have a right to investigate all
transactions between Judgment Debtor and his wife. Judgment Debtor did not file
an Opposition to this motion.
The Motion to Compel Further
Responses and Request for Production of Documents (“RFPs”) should be GRANTED in
part as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 4, 7, 8, 13, and 18, and RFPs Nos. 4,
5, 6, and 9. The information requested by Judgement Creditors in Special
Interrogatories Nos. 4, 7, 8, 13, and 18, pertain to the determination of all
potential assets of Judgment Debtor that can be used to satisfy the Judgment
rendered in this matter. Judgment Creditors have shown the relevancy of the
name and address of Judgment Debtor’s wife’s employers from 2018 to present in
determining the assets of Judgment Debtor that can be used to satisfy the
Judgment since income of a spouse is a Community Asset.
Therefore, the Motion to Compel
Further Responses is GRANTED as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 13,
and 18, and Request for Production of Documents Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 9.
Sanctions:
Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.030,
subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a
monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to
pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a
result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to
respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2023.010, subd. (d).) Further, sanctions are mandatory in the even that a party
“unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to a
demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with
substantial justification…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310; Code Civ. Proc., §
2023.010, subd. (h).) Additionally, under Code of Civil Procedure
Sections 2030.290, subdivision (c), 2031.300, subdivision (c), and 2033.280,
subdivision (c), sanctions are mandatory.
Here, Judgment Creditors requests
sanctions totaling $2,440.00 as Judgment Debtor failed to provide
objectionless, supplemental responses and responsive documents. The request for
sanctions should be GRANTED, in part. While the court agrees with Judgment
Creditor that sanctions are warranted, the amount requested is not reasonable since
the issues of noncompliance were similar.
Therefore, the Request for
Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,190.00.
CONCLUSION:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
Motion to Compel Further Responses
is GRANTED as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 4, 57, 8, 13, and 18 within 15
days of this order.
Motion to Compel Further Responses
is GRANTED as to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 9 within
15 days of this order.
Request for
Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,190.00.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April, 5, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court