Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case 22PDUD01479 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22PDUD01479, Date: 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling

On July 14, 2022, plaintiff Hrayr Brian Der Vartanian (“Plaintiff”) filed this unlawful detainer action against defendant Jaydon Douglas Paull (“Defendant”). On September 22, 2022 Defendant served Form Interrogatories – General (Set One) (“FROGS General”), Form Interrogatories – Unlawful Detainer (Set One) (“FROGS UD”), Special Interrogatories (Set One) (“SROGS”), and Requests for Admission (Set One) (“RFAS”) on Plaintiff (collectively the “Discovery”).

Defendant filed four motions to compel further responses to the Discovery on January 18 and 19, 2023. This ruling addresses all four motions.

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300(a), and section 2033.290, parties may move for a further response to interrogatories or requests for admission 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(c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.3290(c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290(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(a)(3)).¿

Defendant moves to compel further responses to the Discovery on similar grounds. Specifically, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s responses contain evasive responses that contained boilerplate objections, which were impermissible, and which Plaintiff refused to withdraw.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the meet and confer requirement has been satisfied for the motions. (See Bowen Decl.)

A review of Defendant’s moving papers and separate statement reveals that Defendant’s separate statement does not contain Plaintiff’s most recent response to Interrogatory No. 2.6. It appears that Defendant failed to update the separate statement with the most recent responses. (See Bowen Decl., Exh. E; Def. Separate Statement.) Based on the most recent response, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s further response is not deficient.

The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 17.1 is deficient because it only includes a response for the corresponding Request for Admission Nos. 3, 8, and 20. However, a review of Plaintiff’s responses reveals that Plaintiff served several responses that were not unqualified admissions for the Requests for Admission (Set One), but fails to answer all of the subparts of Interrogatory No. 17.1 for each of the responses that were not unqualified admissions. Accordingly, Plaintiff must respond to all of the subparts of Interrogatory No. 17.1 for Requests for Admission Nos. 1, 2, 4-7, 9-19, 21-63.

The Court further finds that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain a motion to compel further responses to Interrogatory No. 4.1 because Defendant’s motion is based on a response served on October 6, 2022, and any motion to compel further for those responses had to be filed by November 23, 2022. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010.6(a)(3)(B); 2030.300; Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1410 [The 45-day time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional.]; Bowen Decl., Exhs. C, E; Def. Separate Statement) As noted above, the instant Motion was not filed until January 18, 2023.

Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to provide a further response to Interrogatory No. 17.1.

A review of Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatory No. 70.7 reveals that response is deficient. Plaintiff responded in relevant part that “after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with this Interrogatory Responding Party is unable to respond because the requested document(s) are not in the custody or control of the responding party.” This response is insufficient. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 requires that if the responding party does not have sufficient knowledge to respond to the interrogatory, that personal shall so state, and shall state that a “reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations.” Here, Plaintiff’s responses do not state Plaintiff inquired with natural persons or organizations to obtain the requested information.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 70.8 is sufficient. This interrogatory asks Plaintiff if he paid any security deposit on the premises, and if so, then for Plaintiff to answer subparts to that interrogatory. Plaintiff responded that Plaintiff did not pay a security deposit in accordance with the subject lease. There is no further response required for this interrogatory.

The Court also finds that Interrogatory No. 70.12 is deficient. This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to identify any person responsible for managing or maintaining the subject property. In response, Plaintiff identifies Robert Ohanian, but fails to provide the dates he managed the property. In addition, Plaintiff’s initial responses were untimely, and the objections asserted in the supplemental responses are improper and should be removed because they were waived.^{^[1]} (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290.)

The Court further finds that Plaintiff improperly asserted objections in the supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 71.4, 71.5, 71.7, 71.8, 74.1, 75.1, 75.2, and 75.3, as those objections had been waived since Plaintiff’s initial responses were untimely. Accordingly, the objections asserted therein are improper and should be removed. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290.)

In light of the Court ordering a further response as to Interrogatory No. 74.1, a further response might be required to Interrogatory Nos. 74.2, 74.3, and 74.6. To the extent, Plaintiff answers Form Interrogatory No. 74.1 in the affirmative, after serving further responses, then further response will be required as to Interrogatory Nos. 74.2, 74.3, and 74.6.

Moreover, the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain a motion to compel further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 70.13, 70.14, 71.3, and 78.1 because Defendant’s motion is based on responses served on October 6, 2022, and any motion to compel further for those responses had to be filed by November 23, 2022. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010.6(a)(3)(B); 2030.300; Sexton, supra, 58 Cal. App. 4th at 1410; Bowen Decl., Exhs. C, E; Def. Separate Statement.) As noted above, the instant Motion was not filed until January 19, 2023.

Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 70.7, 70.12, 71.4, 71.5, 71.7, 71.8, 74.1, 75.1, 75.2, and 75.3. As discussed above, based on Plaintiff’s Response to Interrogatory No. 74.1, Plaintiff may be required to provide a further response to 74.2, 74.3, and 74.6.

The Court finds that Plaintiff improperly asserted objections in supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4-6 and 18, as those objections had been waived since Plaintiff’s initial responses were untimely. Accordingly, the objections asserted therein are improper and should be removed. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290.)

The Court further finds that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain a motion to compel further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 10, 12-15, 19, 20, and 21 because Defendant’s motion to compel further responses is based on responses served on October 6, 2022, and any motion to compel further for those responses had to be filed by November 23, 2022. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010.6(a)(3)(B); 2030.300; Sexton, supra, 58 Cal. App. 4th at 1410; Bowen Decl., Exhs. C, E; Def. Separate Statement.) As noted above, the instant Motion was not filed until January 19, 2023.

Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4-6 and 18.

The Court finds that Plaintiff improperly asserted objections in Plaintiff’s supplemental response to Request No. 43, as those objections had been waived since Plaintiff’s initial response was untimely. Accordingly, the objections asserted therein are improper and should be removed. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280.)

The Court further finds that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain a motion to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 3-13, 29, 31-33, 35, and 49-54 because Defendant’s motion is based on responses served on October 6, 2022, and any motion to compel further for those responses had to be filed by November 23, 2022. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010.6(a)(3)(B); 2033.290; Sexton, supra, 58 Cal. App. 4th at 1410; Bowen Decl., Exhs. C, E; Def. Separate Statement.) As noted above, the instant Motion was not filed until January 18, 2023.

Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, as to all the motions. Plaintiff filed only an opposition as to Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to the SROGS, and in that opposition requests sanctions against Defendant.

In light of the mixed rulings as to all the motions, as discussed above in detail, the Court will not award sanctions against either party.

Defendant’s motions to compel further discovery are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as specified above.

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.

[1] On September 22, 2022 Defendant propounded the Discovery on Plaintiff. In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.260 and 2033.250, Plaintiff’s responses to the Discovery were due on September 27, 2022 since this is an unlawful detainer action. (Bowen Decls. ¶¶ 2.) Plaintiff did not provide responses until October 6, 2022. (Bowen Decls. ¶¶ 4.)