Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV01142, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV01142    Hearing Date: February 17, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On November 21, 2022, plaintiff GDCV PASADENA 201, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant IRR VENTURES, LLC (“Defendant”).  Trial is currently scheduled for March 20, 2023.  Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to provide further answers to GDCV’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”) and produce the requested documents; (2) provide further answers to GDCV’s Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SPROGS”); (3) overruling Defendant’s objections to the Requests and Interrogatories; and (4) requiring Defendant to pay Plaintiff not less than $1,880, which are costs and fees associated with the motion compelling further responses to the RPDs and not less than $2,820, which are costs and fees associated with the motion compelling further responses to SPROGS. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff satisfied the meet and confer requirement as shown in the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel.  (Honarfar Decl. ¶ 4, Exhib. C.)  Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email correspondence to Defendant’s counsel concerning Defendant’s responses to the RPDs, Set One and SPROGS, Set One.  Plaintiff’s counsel pointed out the deficiencies in Defendant’s responses, stating the responses as a whole were inadequate and incomplete.  Plaintiff’s counsel claims that he has not received any response to the email as of filing these motions. 

The motion is unopposed. 

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

Requests for Production

A propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to a demand for inspection if the propounding party deems that an answer or statement of compliance is evasive or incomplete, or that an objection is “without merit or too general.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)  Such a motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause for the discovery sought and be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (b), 2031.210, subd. (b).)

Special Interrogatories

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (a), and Section 2031.310, parties may move for a further response to interrogatories or requests for production of documents where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general.¿¿ 

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); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)  The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, 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)).¿ 

III.        DISCUSSION

a.   RPDs

Plaintiff requests that the Court compel Defendant to provide further answers and produce requested documents to Plaintiff’s RPDs, Set One, and overrule Defendant’s objections. 

                                                 i.    RFP No. 1

RFP No. 1: All COMUNICATIONS between YOU and LANDLORD.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein.  Responding Party further objects to this request as the documents sought is equally available to the Propounding Party.  This request is oppressive and unduly burdensome as it attempts to shift the costs of discovery to the Responding Party.

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant given Defendant’s affirmative defenses and claims that it communicated with an agent of landlord when the landlord asserts that it does not have any record of such correspondence.

The Court overrules Defendant’s objections on the ground that it cannot “incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above.”  Such an objection is improper as the Discovery Act does not authorize such a preamble or general objections, but rather requires a party to assert objections to each demand separately.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210(a).)  The Court also finds that Defendant may not object on the ground that the documents are equally available to Plaintiff.  Even if it were true, Defendant must identify the requested documents as part of its response.  Additionally, Defendant must explain how compliance may be oppressive and unduly burdensome rather than conclusory stating so.  Since Defendant’s objections are overruled, Defendant must provide a code-compliant answer.

Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to RFP No. 1.

                                               ii.    RFP No. 2

RFP No. 2: All DOCUMENTS that support YOUR affirmative defenses.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein.  Responding Party further objects as this request is overbroad as to time and scope and fails to identify requested documents with sufficient particularity.

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant because the documents which Defendant claims support its defenses and which it is likely to introduce at trial are documents are relevant to this action

The Court overrules Defendant’s objections on the ground that it cannot “incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above.”  Such an objection is improper as the Discovery Act does not authorize such a preamble or general objections, but rather requires a party to assert objections to each demand separately.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210(a).)  The Court also finds that Defendant may not object on the ground that the documents are equally available to Plaintiff.  Even if it were true, Defendant must identify the requested documents as part of its response.  Additionally, Defendant must explain how compliance may be oppressive and unduly burdensome rather than conclusory stating so.  Since Defendant’s objections are overruled, Defendant must provide a code-compliant answer.

Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to RFP No. 2.

                                              iii.    RFP No. 3

RFP No. 3: All DOCUMENTS that YOU intend to use at trial.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects as this request is overbroad as to time and scope and fails to identify requested documents with sufficient particularity.

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant because the documents which Defendant will seek to introduce at trial are relevant to the action and to the parties preparation for trial.

The Court overrules Defendant’s objections on the ground that it cannot “incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above.”  Such an objection is improper as the Discovery Act does not authorize such a preamble or general objections, but rather requires a party to assert objections to each demand separately.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210(a).)  The Court also finds that Defendant may not object on the ground that the documents are equally available to Plaintiff.  Even if it were true, Defendant must identify the requested documents as part of its response.  Additionally, Defendant must explain how compliance may be oppressive and unduly burdensome rather than conclusory stating so.  Since Defendant’s objections are overruled, Defendant must provide a code-compliant answer.

Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to RFP No. 3.

b.   SPROGS

                                                 i.    SPROG No. 1

SPROG No.1: State all facts that support YOUR first affirmative defense.

(As used in these interrogatories, “YOUR” refers to defendant IRR Ventures, LLC and its agents, attorneys, representatives, and all other persons acting on its behalf.)

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein.  Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it improperly calls for the disclosure of Responding Party’s counsel’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.

          The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because Plaintiff is entitled to know all facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 1.

                                               ii.    SPROG No. 2

SPROG No. 2: IDENTIFY each PERSON who has knowledge of the facts supporting YOUR first affirmative defense. 1. (As used in these interrogatories, “IDENTIFY” means to state the name, title, address, email-address, and telephone number of each person YOU list in response to the interrogatory. The terms “PERSON” and “PERSONS” shall mean any natural person, corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, sole proprietorship, company, group, organization, trust, estate, business or governmental entity or agency (public or private), and any entity of any description that has a separate identity, recognized in law or in fact to have legal rights and obligations. Any reference to a PERSON that is not a natural person includes its present and former officer, executives, partners, directors, trustees, employees, attorneys, agents, representatives, and all other PERSONS acting or purporting to act on behalf of the person or entity, and also its subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, predecessors, and successors in interest.)

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it improperly calls for the disclosure of Responding Party’s counsel’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because it seeks the identification of witnesses who have knowledge of facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer to the Complaint, which Plaintiff is entitled to know for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 2.

                                             iii.    SPROG No. 3

SPROG No. 3: State all facts that support YOUR second affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it improperly calls for the disclosure of Responding Party’s counsel’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because Plaintiff is entitled to know all facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 3.

                                             iv.    SPROG No. 4

SPROG No. 4: IDENTIFY each PERSON who has knowledge of the facts supporting YOUR second affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this request as it does not comply with California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.060(d), which provides that “Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . .”

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because it seeks the identification of witnesses who have knowledge of facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer to the Complaint, which Plaintiff is entitled to know for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 4.

                                               v.    SPROG No. 5

SPROG No. 5: State all facts that support YOUR third affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it improperly calls for the disclosure of Responding Party’s counsel’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because Plaintiff is entitled to know all facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 5.

                                             vi.    SPROG No. 6

SPROG No. 6: IDENTIFY each PERSON who has knowledge of the facts supporting YOUR third affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this request as it does not comply with California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.060(d), which provides that “Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . .”

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because it seeks the identification of witnesses who have knowledge of facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer to the Complaint, which Plaintiff is entitled to know for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 6.

                                           vii.    SPROG No. 7

SPROG No. 7: State all facts that support YOUR fourth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it improperly calls for the disclosure of Responding Party’s counsel’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because Plaintiff is entitled to know all facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 7.

                                          viii.    SPROG No. 8

SPROG No. 8: IDENTIFY each PERSON who has knowledge of the facts supporting YOUR fourth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this request as it does not comply with California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.060(d), which provides that “Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . .”

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because it seeks the identification of witnesses who have knowledge of facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer to the Complaint, which Plaintiff is entitled to know for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 4.

                                             ix.    SPROG No. 9

SPROG No. 9: State all facts that support YOUR fifth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it improperly calls for the disclosure of Responding Party’s counsel’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because Plaintiff is entitled to know all facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 9.

                                               x.    SPROG No. 10

SPROG No. 10: IDENTIFY each PERSON who has knowledge of the facts supporting YOUR fifth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this request as it does not comply with California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.060(d), which provides that “Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . .”

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because it seeks the identification of witnesses who have knowledge of facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer to the Complaint, which Plaintiff is entitled to know for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 10.

                                             xi.    SPROG No. 11

SPROG No. 11: State all facts that support YOUR sixth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it improperly calls for the disclosure of Responding Party’s counsel’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because Plaintiff is entitled to know all facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 5.

                                           xii.    SPROG No. 12

SPROG No. 12: IDENTIFY each PERSON who has knowledge of the facts supporting YOUR sixth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this request as it does not comply with California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.060(d), which provides that “Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . .”

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because it seeks the identification of witnesses who have knowledge of facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer to the Complaint, which Plaintiff is entitled to know for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 12.

                                          xiii.    SPROG No. 13

SPROG No. 13: State all facts that support YOUR seventh affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it improperly calls for the disclosure of Responding Party’s counsel’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because Plaintiff is entitled to know all facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 13.

                                          xiv.    SPROG No. 14

SPROG No. 14: IDENTIFY each PERSON who has knowledge of the facts supporting YOUR seventh affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this request as it does not comply with California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.060(d), which provides that “Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . .”

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because it seeks the identification of witnesses who have knowledge of facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer to the Complaint, which Plaintiff is entitled to know for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 14.

                                            xv.    SPROG No. 15

SPROG No. 15: State all facts that support YOUR eighth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it improperly calls for the disclosure of Responding Party’s counsel’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because Plaintiff is entitled to know all facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 15.

                                          xvi.    SPROG No. 16

SPROG No. 16: IDENTIFY each PERSON who has knowledge of the facts supporting YOUR eighth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this request as it does not comply with California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.060(d), which provides that “Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . .”

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because it seeks the identification of witnesses who have knowledge of facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer to the Complaint, which Plaintiff is entitled to know for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 16.

                                        xvii.    SPROG No. 17

SPROG No. 17: State all facts that support YOUR ninth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it improperly calls for the disclosure of Responding Party’s counsel’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because Plaintiff is entitled to know all facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 17.

                                      xviii.    SPROG No. 18

SPROG No. 18: IDENTIFY each PERSON who has knowledge of the facts supporting YOUR ninth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this request as it does not comply with California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.060(d), which provides that “Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . .”

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because it seeks the identification of witnesses who have knowledge of facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer to the Complaint, which Plaintiff is entitled to know for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 18.

                                          xix.    SPROG No. 19

SPROG No. 19: State all facts that support YOUR tenth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it improperly calls for the disclosure of Responding Party’s counsel’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because Plaintiff is entitled to know all facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 19.

                                            xx.    SPROG No. 20

SPROG No. 20: IDENTIFY each PERSON who has knowledge of the facts supporting YOUR tenth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this request as it does not comply with California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.060(d), which provides that “Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . .”

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because it seeks the identification of witnesses who have knowledge of facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer to the Complaint, which Plaintiff is entitled to know for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 20.

                                          xxi.    SPROG No. 21

SPROG No. 21: State all facts that support YOUR eleventh affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it improperly calls for the disclosure of Responding Party’s counsel’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because Plaintiff is entitled to know all facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 21.

                                        xxii.    SPROG No. 22

SPROG No. 22: IDENTIFY each PERSON who has knowledge of the facts supporting YOUR eleventh affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this request as it does not comply with California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.060(d), which provides that “Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . .”

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because it seeks the identification of witnesses who have knowledge of facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer to the Complaint, which Plaintiff is entitled to know for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 22.

                                      xxiii.    SPROG No. 23

SPROG No. 23: State all facts that support YOUR twelfth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it improperly calls for the disclosure of Responding Party’s counsel’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because Plaintiff is entitled to know all facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 23.

                                       xxiv.    SPROG No. 24

SPROG No. 24: IDENTIFY each PERSON who has knowledge of the facts supporting YOUR twelfth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this request as it does not comply with California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.060(d), which provides that “Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . .”

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because it seeks the identification of witnesses who have knowledge of facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer to the Complaint, which Plaintiff is entitled to know for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 24.

                                         xxv.    SPROG No. 25

SPROG No. 25: State all facts that support YOUR thirteenth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it improperly calls for the disclosure of Responding Party’s counsel’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because Plaintiff is entitled to know all facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 25.

                                       xxvi.    SPROG No. 26

SPROG No. 26: IDENTIFY each PERSON who has knowledge of the facts supporting YOUR thirteenth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this request as it does not comply with California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.060(d), which provides that “Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . .”

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because it seeks the identification of witnesses who have knowledge of facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer to the Complaint, which Plaintiff is entitled to know for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 26.

                                     xxvii.    SPROG No. 27

SPROG No. 27: State all facts that support YOUR fourteenth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it improperly calls for the disclosure of Responding Party’s counsel’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because Plaintiff is entitled to know all facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 27.

                                   xxviii.    SPROG No. 28

SPROG No. 28: IDENTIFY each PERSON who has knowledge of the facts supporting YOUR fourteenth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this request as it does not comply with California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.060(d), which provides that “Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . .”

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because it seeks the identification of witnesses who have knowledge of facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer to the Complaint, which Plaintiff is entitled to know for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 28.

                                       xxix.    SPROG No. 29

SPROG No. 29: State all facts that support YOUR fifteenth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it improperly calls for the disclosure of Responding Party’s counsel’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because Plaintiff is entitled to know all facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 29.

                                         xxx.    SPROG No. 30

SPROG No. 30: IDENTIFY each PERSON who has knowledge of the facts supporting YOUR fifteenth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this request as it does not comply with California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.060(d), which provides that “Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . .”

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because it seeks the identification of witnesses who have knowledge of facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer to the Complaint, which Plaintiff is entitled to know for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 30.

                                       xxxi.    SPROG No. 31

SPROG No. 31: State all facts that support YOUR sixteenth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it improperly calls for the disclosure of Responding Party’s counsel’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because Plaintiff is entitled to know all facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 31.

                                     xxxii.    SPROG No. 32

SPROG No. 32: IDENTIFY each PERSON who has knowledge of the facts supporting YOUR sixteenth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this request as it does not comply with California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.060(d), which provides that “Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . .”

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because it seeks the identification of witnesses who have knowledge of facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer to the Complaint, which Plaintiff is entitled to know for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 32.

                                   xxxiii.    SPROG No. 33

SPROG No. 33: State all facts that support YOUR seventeenth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it improperly calls for the disclosure of Responding Party’s counsel’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because Plaintiff is entitled to know all facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 33.

                                    xxxiv.    SPROG No. 34

SPROG No. 34: IDENTIFY each PERSON who has knowledge of the facts supporting YOUR seventeenth affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Response: Responding Party incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above, as if fully set forth herein. Responding Party further objects to this request as it does not comply with California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.060(d), which provides that “Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included . . .”

The Court finds this discovery request to be relevant in that because it seeks the identification of witnesses who have knowledge of facts that support the affirmative defense Defendant has asserted in its Answer to the Complaint, which Plaintiff is entitled to know for trial preparation.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are overruled and Defendant is required to provide code-compliant responses.

          Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to SPROG No. 34.

c.   Sanctions

Where the court grants a motion to compel further responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (h), 2030.300, subd. (d).)   

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED.  Sanctions are imposed against Defendant. 

Sanctions are to be awarded as follows: 

Request for Production of Documents — $940 for a reduced two hours spent preparing the motion at a reduced rate of $470 per hour.

Special Interrogatories — $940 for a reduced two hours spent preparing the motion at a reduced rate of $470 per hour.

The total amount of sanctions is $1,880 to be paid by Defendant, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. 

IV.         CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s RPDs Nos. 1-3 and SPROGs Nos. 1-34.

The Court orders Defendant to serve on Plaintiff complete, Code-compliant, further responses, without objections, to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1-3 and to produce to Plaintiff all documents in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control which are responsive to the same, within 30 days of the date of this order.  The Court also orders Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 1-34, within 30 days of the date of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at alhdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.