Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2020-01162978, Date: 2022-11-29 Tentative Ruling
Motion No. 1:
Defendants’ (Hassan Kashefipour and Zarrinkelk, Kashefipour & Co.) unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff Meridian PO Finance LLC to Serve Further Responses to Defendants First Set of Special Interrogatories (Motion), filed on 5-12-22 under ROA 247, is GRANTED.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides: “(a) 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. ¶ (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. ¶ 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.”
Fairmont Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255, explains, “Or a party may object to a particular discovery request, placing the burden on the party seeking discovery to enforce discovery through a motion to compel.” Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541, states, “While the party propounding interrogatories may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answer it receives unsatisfactory, the burden to justify any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory. [Citation.]” (See also, Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)
Deyo v. Kilbourne, (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 (Deyo) provides, “Parties, like witnesses, are required to state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories. [Citation.] Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer which supplies only a portion of the information sought is wholly insufficient. Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. [Citation.] [¶] A party may not deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of supplying an evasive answer. [Citation.] Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response. [Citation.] [¶] A party cannot state, ‘not applicable’ [Citation.]” (Footnote 9 omitted.)
On 1-28-22, Plaintiff (Meridian PO Finance LLC) served Defendants with “Plaintiff Meridian PO Finance LLC’s Responses to Defendants Hassan Kashefipour and Zarrinkelk Kashefipour & Co.’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One.” (10-31-22 Smith Decl., ¶ 3 and Exhibit 1.) The parties extended the deadline for a motion to compel to 5-13-22. (10-31-22 Smith Decl., ¶¶ 6, 7, and Exhibit 6.) Thus, Plaintiff has timely filed this Motion.
Defendants seek a further response to Special Interrogatories Nos. 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31. 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43. 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60. 6l, 63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 78, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 100 and 102. The responses to these interrogatories are evasive. They either fail to provide responsive information or improperly refer to and incorporate other responses to interrogatories.
Since Plaintiff did not file an Opposition, Plaintiff has not provided a justification for any of its objections.
Based on the above, the court GRANTS Defendants’ (Hassan Kashefipour and Zarrinkelk, Kashefipour & Co.) unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff Meridian PO Finance LLC to Serve Further Responses to Defendants First Set of Special Interrogatories, filed on 5-12-22 under ROA 247, in its entirety. The court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide further verified Code of Civil Procedure compliant responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31. 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43. 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60. 6l, 63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 78, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 100 and 102 within 15 days from the date of service of the notice of the court’s ruling. The court awards a monetary sanction in the amount $2060.00 against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant. (5-12-22 Smith Decl., ¶¶ 16 and 17; Code Cvi. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)
Defendants are to give notice.
Motion No. 2:
Defendants’ (Hassan Kashefipour and Zarrinkelk, Kashefipour & Co.) unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff Breakaway Capital Management LLC to Serve Further Responses to Defendants First Set of Special Interrogatories (Motion), filed on 5-12-22 under ROA 246, is GRANTED.
Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.210 states: “(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 of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides: “(a) 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. ¶ (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. ¶ 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.”
Fairmont Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255, explains, “Or a party may object to a particular discovery request, placing the burden on the party seeking discovery to enforce discovery through a motion to compel.” Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541, states, “While the party propounding interrogatories may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answer it receives unsatisfactory, the burden to justify any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory. [Citation.]” (See also, Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)
Deyo v. Kilbourne, (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 (Deyo) provides, “Parties, like witnesses, are required to state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories. [Citation.] Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer which supplies only a portion of the information sought is wholly insufficient. Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. [Citation.] [¶] A party may not deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of supplying an evasive answer. [Citation.] Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response. [Citation.] [¶] A party cannot state, ‘not applicable’ [Citation.]” (Footnote 9 omitted.)
On 1-28-22, Plaintiff (Breakaway Capital Management LLC) served Defendants with “Plaintiff Breakway Capital Managment LLC’s Responses to Defendants Hassan Kashefipour and Zarrinkelk Kashefipour & Co.’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One.” (10-31-22 Smith Decl., ¶ 3 and Exhibit 2.) The parties extended the deadline for a motion to compel to 5-13-22. (10-31-22 Smith Decl., ¶¶ 6, 7, and Exhibit 6.) Thus, Plaintiff has timely filed this Motion.
Defendants seek a further response to Special Interrogatories Nos. 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31. 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43. 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60. 6l, 63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 78, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 100 and 102. The responses to these interrogatories are evasive. They either fail to provide responsive information or improperly refer to and incorporate other responses to interrogatories.
Since Plaintiff did not file an Opposition, Plaintiff has not provided a justification for any of its objections.
Based on the above, the court GRANTS Defendants’ (Hassan Kashefipour and Zarrinkelk, Kashefipour & Co.) unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff Breakaway Capital Management LLC to Serve Further Responses to Defendants First Set of Special Interrogatories, filed on 5-12-22 under ROA 246, in its entirety. The court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide further verified Code of Civil Procedure compliant responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31. 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43. 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60. 6l, 63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 78, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 100 and 102 within 15 days from the date of service of the notice of the court’s ruling. The court awards a monetary sanction in the amount $2060.00 against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant. (5-12-22 Smith Decl., ¶¶ 16 and 17; Code Cvi. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)
Defendants are to give notice.