Judge Walter P. Schwarm, Case 30-2022-01290103 2023-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2022-01290103, Date: 2023-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Motion No. 1:

Plaintiff’s (Ashkan Rajaee) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories to Defendant Seanet Company, Inc. (Motion), filed on 2-21-23 under ROA No. 56, is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides in 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. . . .”

Defendant’s (Seanet Company, Inc.) Opposition to Plaintiff Ashkan Rajaee’s Motions to Compel Further Responses (Opposition), filed on 7-19-23 under ROA No. 123, states, “Defendant responded in such manner that could preserve its rights to arbitration without denying Plaintiff’s right to discovery in this forum should the Court ultimately decide not to permit the Parties to attend arbitration in lieu of judicial litigation: “SeaNet objects to this request as premature as SeaNet has a pending motion to compel arbitration and stay the action pending arbitration. Accordingly, SeaNet reserves the right to supplement this response pending the outcome of the hearing on the motion to compel arbitration and stay the action pending arbitration.” Defendant could not provide more responsive information without risking waiver.” (Opposition; 6:25-7:3.)

Plaintiff served Defendant “Form Interrogatories—General Set No. One” on 12-6-22. (Cate Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.) As to each Form Interrogatory (FI), Defendant provided the following response, “SeaNet objects to this request as premature as SeaNet has a pending motion to compel arbitration and stay the action pending arbitration. Accordingly, SeaNet reserves the right to supplement this response pending the outcome of the hearing on the motion to compel arbitration and stay the action pending arbitration.” (Cate Decl., ¶ 3 and Exhibit B.)

On 4-11-23, the court denied Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay the case. (4-11-23 Minute Order.) On 5-5-23 under ROA No. 87, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s 4-11-23 order. Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is set for hearing on 9-19-23. There is no stay of this action because the court denied Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the case on 4-11-23. Since there is no stay, Defendant is required to respond to discovery.

Therefore, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s (Ashkan Rajaee) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories to Defendant Seanet Company, Inc. filed on 2-21-23 under ROA No. 56. The court ORDERS Defendant to provide Code of Civil Procedure compliant responses to Plaintiff’s “Form Interrogatories—General Set No. One” (Cate Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A) within 30 days of the date of service of the notice of the court’s ruling. The court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a monetary sanction because Defendant was substantially justified in opposing the Motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).) Defendant was substantially justified in opposing the Motion because Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration was pending at the time Plaintiff filed this Motion.

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Motion No. 2:

Plaintiff’s (Ashkan Rajaee) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories to Defendant Seanet Company, Inc. (Motion), filed on 2-21-23 under ROA No. 57, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff served Defendant “Plaintiff Ashkan Rajaee’s Special Interrogatories to Defendant Seanet Company, Inc. [Set One]” on 12-6-22. (Cate Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.) As to each Special Interrogatory (SI), Defendant provided the following response, “SeaNet objects to this request as premature as SeaNet has a pending motion to compel arbitration and stay the action pending arbitration. Accordingly, SeaNet reserves the right to supplement this response pending the outcome of the hearing on the motion to compel arbitration and stay the action pending arbitration.” (Cate Decl., ¶ 3 and Exhibit B.)

Therefore, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s (Ashkan Rajaee) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories to Defendant Seanet Company, Inc. filed on 2-21-23 under ROA No. 57. The court ORDERS Defendant to provide Code of Civil Procedure compliant responses to Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff Ashkan Rajaee’s Special Interrogatories to Defendant Seanet Company, Inc. [Set One]” (Cate Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A) within 30 days of the date of service of the notice of the court’s ruling. The court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a monetary sanction because Defendant was substantially justified in opposing the Motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).) Defendant was substantially justified in opposing the Motion because Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration was pending at the time Plaintiff filed this Motion.

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Motion No. 3:

Plaintiff’s (Ashkan Rajaee) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production to Defendant Seanet Company, Inc. (Motion), filed on 2-21-23 under ROA No. 62, 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.”

Plaintiff served Defendant “Plaintiff Ashkan Rajaee’s Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Seanet Company, Inc. [Set One]” on 12-6-22. (Cate Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.) As to each Request for Production (RFP), Defendant provided the following response, “SeaNet objects to this request as premature as SeaNet has a pending motion to compel arbitration and stay the action pending arbitration. Accordingly, SeaNet reserves the right to supplement this response pending the outcome of the hearing on the motion to compel arbitration and stay the action pending arbitration.” (Cate Decl., ¶ 3 and Exhibit B.)

Therefore, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s (Ashkan Rajaee) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production to Defendant Seanet Company, Inc. (Motion), filed on 2-21-23 under ROA No. 62. The court ORDERS Defendant to provide Code of Civil Procedure compliant responses to Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff Ashkan Rajaee’s Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Seanet Company, Inc. [Set One]” (Cate Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A) within 30 days of the date of service of the notice of the court’s ruling. The court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a monetary sanction because Defendant was substantially justified in opposing the Motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) Defendant was substantially justified in opposing the Motion because Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration was pending at the time Plaintiff filed this Motion.

Plaintiff is to give notice.