Judge Walter P. Schwarm, Case 30-2021-01207537 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2021-01207537, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Motion No. 1:

Plaintiff’s (Superb Product Resource, LLC) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) from George Gemayel (Motion), filed on 2-2-22 under ROA No. 55, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides in pertinent part: “(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 . . . (c) 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.)

Based on Plaintiff’s Separate Supplemental Statement (PSSS) filed on 7-29-22 under ROA No. 121, Form Interrogatories (FI) Nos. 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 15.1 17.1, and 50.1 are still at issue between the parties. Defendants’ (First Standard Real Estate, LLC and George Gemayel) Declaration in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Documents, filed on 8-1-22 under ROA No. 123, states, “5. On February 2, 2022, Plaintiffs served a Notice of Motion and Motions to Compel further discovery responses with a hearing date set for June 14, 2022. [¶] 6. On June 1, 2022 Defendants served on Plaintiffs their supplemented responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories and Requests for Documents. True and correct copies are attached hereto as Exhibits 1-4. [¶] 7. Included with these responses, Defendants produced all of the documents in their possession and control bearing any relevance to this litigation.” (Lazo Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6, and 7; Emphasis is declaration.)

FI Nos. 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7:

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 2.2 (re date and place of Defendant’s birth); No. 2.3 (re Defendant’s driver’s license); No. 2.4 (re permit or license for the operation of a motor vehicle); No. 2.5 (re Defendant’s residence address); No. 2.6 (re Defendant’s employment history); No. 2.7 (Defendant’s education).

Defendant’s supplemental responses to FI Nos. 2.2 through 2.7 are identical to Defendant’s original response and state: “Objection. This request is burdensome, harassing and overly broad. Further, the request is irrelevant and seeks information not relevant to the subject matter, nor is it likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (PSSS.)

Defendant has not satisfied Defendant’s burden to justify the objections to FI Nos. 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7. Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion as to FI Nos. 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7.

FI No. 15.1:

Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 asks about Defendant’s denial of material allegations and each special or affirmative defense.

Defendant’s supplemental response to FI No. 15.1 is identical to Defendant’s original response. In his supplemental response, Defendant asserts objections but does not provide a substantive response. Defendant has not satisfied Defendant’s burden to justify Defendant’s objections and failure to fully respond to Interrogatory No. 15.1. Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion as to FI No. 15.1

FI No. 17.1:

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 as it pertains to Request for Admission (RFA) Nos. 10, 17-21, 23-29, 31-35.

Defendant’s supplemental response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 as it pertains to RFA Nos. 10, 17-21, 23-29, 31-35 is identical to the original response. Defendant does not sufficiently respond to the subparts.

As to RFA Nos. RFA Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, and 33, in response to subpart (b) which asks Defendant to “State all facts upon which you base your response,” Defendant responds by stating that “Responding party denies this request factually.” Although Defendant denies the request factually, Defendant does not provide supporting facts. no supporting facts are provided. Defendant’s response to FI No. 17.1 as it pertains to RFA Nos. 17-26, 28, 29, 33 is inadequate, and the court GRANTS the Motion as FI No. 17.1 as applied to RFA Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, and 33.

According to the Motion, RFA No. 10 “. . . asks Defendants to admit they did not have a certificate of occupancy specifically for the 32,000 square foot space described in the 2526 Lease as ‘Unit D’ ” (Motion; 13:5:24-25.) Defendant responded by stating “ . . . a certificate of occupancy exists for the area included in that square footage.” (PSSS; 11:14-16.) The response is unclear because it does not respond as to whether Defendant has a certificate of occupancy for Unit D. Further, as to subpart (d) Defendant states, “Responding party is unaware of documents supporting the existence or nonexistence of this fact” even though as to subpart (b) Defendant responds that “a certificate of occupancy exists for the area included in that square footage.” Defendant’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 as it pertains to RFA No. 10 does not sufficiently respond to the interrogatory. Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion as to FI No. 17.1 as applied to RFA No. 10.

As to RFA No. 27, Defendant’s response to subpart (d) is insufficient because it does not identify documents in support of his response to 17.1(b) that he “received non-refundable advance rent in the amount of $180,000, $7,200 in Common Area Operating Expenses and $187,200 security deposit.” Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion as to FI No. 17 as applied to RFA Nos. 17

As to RFA Nos. 31, 32, 34, and 35, in response to subpart (b), Defendant objected on the grounds that the requests are compound. Plaintiff did not provide the court with a copy of the RFAs that Plaintiff served on Defendant. Thus, the court cannot determine whether Defendant improperly objected to these RFAs. Therefore, the court DENIES the Motion as to FI No. 17.1 as applied to RFA Nos. 31, 32, 34, and 35.

FI No. 50.1:

Form Interrogatory No. 50.1 requests information regarding “each agreement alleged in the pleadings.”

Defendant’s supplemental response which is identical to the original response states: “The operative agreements had no modifications; they are the two written lease agreements, one entered into on or about 4/16/2019 and the second on 11/1/2019. Both responding party and propounding party have this document. No modifications, in writing or oral, were made.” (PSSS, FI No. 50.1.)

Defendant’s response does not sufficiently respond to each of the subparts. For example, subpart (a) asks to “Identify each DOCUMENT that is part of the agreement and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the DOCUMENT.” Defendant’s response does not sufficiently address subpart (a). Therefore, the court GRANTS FI No. 50.1

Based on the above, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s (Superb Product Resource, LLC) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) from George Gemayel, filed on 2-2-22 under ROA No. 55, as to FI Nos. 31, 32, 34, and 35. The court GRANTS the Motion as to the remainder of the FIs and the court ORDERS Defendant to provide verified, supplemental responses (without objections) to FI Nos. 10, 15.1, 17.1 (as to the RFAs set forth above), 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 33, and 50.1 within 14 days of the date of service of the notice of the court’s decision.

The court GRANTS the Motion as to a monetary sanction and awards a monetary sanction against Defendant in the amount of $4,155.00 and payable to Plaintiff. (2-1-22 Beg Decl., ¶ 13; Code Civ. Proc., 2030.300, subd.(c);, and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Motion No. 2:

Plaintiff’s (Superb Product Resource, LLC) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) from First Standard Real Estate, LLC (Motion), filed on 2-2-22 under ROA No. 55, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Based on Plaintiff’s Separate Supplemental Statement (PSSS) filed on 7-29-22 under ROA No. 115, Form Interrogatories (FI) Nos. 15.1 and 17.1 are still at issue between the parties. Defendants’ (First Standard Real Estate, LLC and George Gemayel) Declaration in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Documents, filed on 8-1-22 under ROA No. 123, states, “5. On February 2, 2022, Plaintiffs served a Notice of Motion and Motions to Compel further discovery responses with a hearing date set for June 14, 2022. [¶] 6. On June 1, 2022 Defendants served on Plaintiffs their supplemented responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories and Requests for Documents. True and correct copies are attached hereto as Exhibits 1-4. [¶] 7. Included with these responses, Defendants produced all of the documents in their possession and control bearing any relevance to this litigation.” (Lazo Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6, and 7; Emphasis is declaration.)

FI No. 15.1:

Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 asks about Defendant’s denial of material allegations and each special or affirmative defense.

FI No. 17.1:

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 as it pertains to Request for Admission (RFA) Nos. 10, 17-21, 23-29, 31-35.

The court DENIES the Motion as to FI No. 17.1 as applied to Request for Admission (RFA) Nos. 31, 32, 34, and 35 for the same reasons as stated for Motion No. 1. The court GRANTS the Motion as to FI No. 17.1 as applied to RFA Nos. 10, 17-21, 23-29, and 33.

Based on the above, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s (Superb Product Resource, LLC) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) from First Standard Real Estate, LLC, filed on 2-2-22 under ROA No. 55, as to FI Nos. 31, 32, 34, and 35. The court GRANTS the Motion as to the remainder of the FIs and the court ORDERS Defendant to provide verified, supplemental responses (without objections) to FI Nos. 15.1 and 17.1 (as to the RFAs set forth above) within 14 days of the date of service of the notice of the court’s decision.

Since Plaintiff filed two motions within a single filing, the court does not award a monetary sanction because the court has awarded a monetary sanction in connection with Motion No. 1.

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Motion No. 3:

Plaintiff’s (Superb Product Resource, LLC) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Documents from George Gemayel (Motion), filed on 2-2-22 under ROA No. 60, is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides: “(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. [¶] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. [¶] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. [¶] (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following: [¶] (1) the motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. [¶] (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. . . [¶] (c) 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 demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.”

Based on Plaintiff’s Separate Supplemental Statement (PSSS) filed on 7-29-22 under ROA No. 113, Demand Nos. 13 and 69 are still at issue between the parties. Defendants’ (First Standard Real Estate, LLC and George Gemayel) Declaration in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Documents, filed on 8-1-22 under ROA No. 123, states, “5. On February 2, 2022, Plaintiffs served a Notice of Motion and Motions to Compel further discovery responses with a hearing date set for June 14, 2022. [¶] 6. On June 1, 2022 Defendants served on Plaintiffs their supplemented responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories and Requests for Documents. True and correct copies are attached hereto as Exhibits 1-4. [¶] 7. Included with these responses, Defendants produced all of the documents in their possession and control bearing any relevance to this litigation.” (Lazo Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6, and 7; Emphasis is declaration.)

Demand No 13:

Demand No. 13 requests, “All COMMUNICATIONS dated August 1, 2019 through November 1, 2019, with any PERSON other than PLAINTIFFS that reflect an interest in leasing the 2520 PROPERTY.” (PSSS, Demand No. 13.)

Plaintiff has shown that good cause exists to compel a further response because the documents requested by Demand No. 13 are necessary to support Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant was unable to lease/sell the Property for cannabis use due to the non-conforming nature of the premises. (For example, see Complaint (filed on 6-25-21 under ROA No. 2 at paragraphs 16, 17, and 18.)

Defendant’s supplemental response is identical to the original response. Defendant objects on the grounds that the definitions of “communications” “person” and “2520 property” are overbroad; Demand is unlimited as to time and scope; invades the right of privacy of Defendant and third parties; and that the Demand invades the attorney-client privilege. (PSSS, Demand No. 13.)

Defendant does not justify his objections to the Demand. Further, the Demand is limited to a 3-month period and is not unlimited as to time and scope. As to the objection on the grounds of privacy, Plaintiff has shown that it offered to enter into a stipulated protective order to protect any privacy interest at stake and requested that Defendant identify with particularity any documents being withheld on the grounds of privacy, but Defendant failed to respond. (PSSS, Demand No. 13.

Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion as to Demand No. 13. To the extent that Defendant withholds any documents on the basis of attorney-client privilege, Plaintiff is required to provide a privilege log.

Demand No. 69:

Demand No 69 requests, “All DOCUMENTS related to George Gemayel’s ownership and control of First Standard Real Estate, LLC.” (PSSS, Demand No. 16.)

Plaintiff has shown that good cause exists to compel a further response because the documents requested by Demand No. 69 are necessary to determine whether Defendants complied with corporate formalities and in order to evaluate their alter-ego claims. (PSSS No. 69.)

Defendant’s supplemental response is identical to the original response. Defendant objects on the grounds that the definitions of “documents” and “your” render the Demand are overbroad; Demand is unlimited as to time and scope; unduly burdensome, calculated to annoy and harass Defendant, and invades the right of privacy of Defendant. Defendant does not justify these objections to the Demand.

Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion as to Demand No. 69.

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s (Superb Product Resource, LLC) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Documents from George Gemayel filed on 2-2-22 under ROA No. 60. The court ORDERS Defendant to provide verified, supplemental responses (without objections) to Demand Nos. 13 and 69 within 14 days of the date of service of the notice of the court’s decision.

The court GRANTS the Motion as to a monetary sanction and awards a monetary sanction against Defendant in the amount of $4,155.00 and payable to Plaintiff. (2-1-22 Beg Decl.; Code Civ. Proc., 2031.310, subd. (h); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Motion No. 4:

Plaintiff’s (Superb Product Resource, LLC) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Documents from First Standard Real Estate, LLC (Motion), filed on 2-2-22 under ROA No. 60, is GRANTED.

Based on Plaintiff’s Separate Supplemental Statement (PSSS) filed on 7-29-22 under ROA No. 119, Demand Nos. 13 and 69 are still at issue between the parties. Defendants’ (First Standard Real Estate, LLC and George Gemayel) Declaration in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Documents, filed on 8-1-22 under ROA No. 123, states, “5. On February 2, 2022, Plaintiffs served a Notice of Motion and Motions to Compel further discovery responses with a hearing date set for June 14, 2022. [¶] 6. On June 1, 2022 Defendants served on Plaintiffs their supplemented responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories and Requests for Documents. True and correct copies are attached hereto as Exhibits 1-4. [¶] 7. Included with these responses, Defendants produced all of the documents in their possession and control bearing any relevance to this litigation.” (Lazo Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6, and 7; Emphasis is declaration.)

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to Demand Nos. 13 and 69 which are identical to the Demands served on Defendant—George Gemayel. For the same reasons as discussed in Motion No. 3, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s (Superb Product Resource, LLC) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Documents from First Standard Real Estate, LLC filed on 2-2-22 under ROA No. 60. The court ORDERS Defendant to provide verified, supplemental responses (without objections) to Demand Nos. 13 and 69 within 14 days of the date of service of the notice of the court’s decision.

Since Plaintiff filed two motions within a single filing, the court does not award a monetary sanction because the court has awarded a monetary sanction in connection with Motion No. 3.

Plaintiff is to give notice.