Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 19STCV10435, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling
Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:
The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.
Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.
If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.
**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.
Case Number: 19STCV10435 Hearing Date: January 20, 2023 Dept: 31
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant CAA’s request to Compel Further Responses Form Interrogatories No. 17.1 is MOOT.
Defendant CAA’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
On March 26, 2019, Plaintiff John Musero filed the instant action against Defendants Creative Artists Agency, LLC (“CAA”); Andrew Miller; Leah Yerushalaim; and Does 1 to 10. The
The operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) asserts causes of action for:
1. Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Confidentiality;
2. Breach of Contract; and
3. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.
Plaintiff is a professional television writer and was represented by Defendant CAA through Defendants Miller and Yerushalaim of CAA’s television literary department beginning in June of 2014. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and duty of confidentiality in their provision of services to Plaintiff as his agents and also breached their contract with Plaintiff by, among other things, allegedly misappropriating Plaintiff’s new original television pilot entitled Main Justice by developing it with Jerry Bruckheimer and writer Sasha Penn.
On August 31, 2022, Defendant CAA moved to Compel Further Discovery responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.
On January 05, 2023, Plaintiff filed opposing papers.
Defendant CAA filed a reply on January 12, 2023.
MEET AND CONFER
Per the Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 states that a motion to compel further responses must always be accompanied by a meet-and-confer-declaration demonstrating a “reasonable and good faith attempt an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Id., §§ 2030.300(b), 2031.310(b)(2), 2033.290(b).)
The meet and confer requirement has been met. (See e.g. Quattlebaum, IV Decl.)
LEGAL STANDARD
A motion to compel further responses to form or specially prepared interrogatories may be brought if the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a).) The motion must also be accompanied by a separate statement containing the requests and the responses, verbatim, as well as reasons why a further response is warranted. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) The separate statement must also be complete in itself; no extrinsic materials may be incorporated by reference. (Id., rule 3.1345(c).)
A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) It is not necessary for the motion to show that the material sought will be admissible in evidence. “Good cause” may be found to justify discovery where specific facts show that the discovery is necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. (See Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 586-588; see also CCP §§ 2017.010, 2019.030(a)(1) (Information is discoverable if it is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and it is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.); Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 (noting a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence).)
DISCUSSION
Motion to Compel Further Responses
Defendant Creative Artists Agency, LLC (“CAA”) filed this instant Motion seeking an Order requiring Plaintiff to provide a further response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. Defendant CAA asserts that the day before Plaintiff’s opposition to this Motion was due, Plaintiff provided supplemental responses to No. 17.1 as well as to Form Interrogatories Nos. 9.2, and 50.1.
Accordingly, CAA’s Motion is MOOT as to the Order compelling further response to Interrogatory 17.1
Monetary Sanctions
“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)
Defendant CAA requests the Court award sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorneys for the fees incurred in bringing this Motion and the time meeting and conferring with Plaintiff regarding supplemental responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.
The facts warranting sanctions are as follows:
On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff was served with Form Interrogatories. On July 21, 2022, CAA sent Plaintiff a letter outlining the deficiencies to Interrogatory 17.1 and requested a further response. (Quattlebaum Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. C)
On August 07, 2022 , Plaintiff responded by stating:
“We will also be able to provide a further response to Form Interrogatory 17.1(d) now that documents have been gathered and produced. However, we do not agree that a separate response is required under 17.1(b) where the response is the same for multiple FRAs but we are willing to consider any authority you have and either way ensure that your client has the information it needs.”
(Quattlebaum Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. D.)
Defendant responded on August 15, 2022, further explaining why Interrogatory 17.1 was deficient:
“Plaintiff has provided the same verbatim response to Form Interrogatory No. 17(b) for CAA RFA Nos. 4-7. However, these RFAs clearly seek admission as to separate issues. For example, RFA No. 4 asks Plaintiff to admit CAA was not the party that would hire Plaintiff as a writer. RFA No. 6 asks Plaintiff to admit that CAA was not responsible for deciding whether Plaintiff’s work would be optioned for purchase by a third party. These separate and distinct Requests warrant separate and distinct responses. Moreover, none of the of the same verbatim responses answer the call of the respective Request. Rather, the responses are generalized and speculative, based on hearsay, and unrelated to the facts of this case. Plaintiff must amend his responses accordingly.”
(Quattlebaum Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. E.)
Plaintiff requested a further meet and confer on August 18, 2022, during which CAA requested that further responses be provided first. CAA also stated that it would proceed with this instant motion if no further response was provided.
Plaintiff states there was an impasse due to CAA’s refusal to meet and confer further unless further responses were provided.
It was not until November 9, 2022, at the Informal Discovery Conference that Plaintiff agreed to provide further responses. (Doniger ¶ 2, Ex. 3.)
The Court finds that Defendant CAA provided a reasonable explanation as to why it needed a further response to Interrogatory No. 17.5. By Plaintiff’s own admission, it was in possession of this information on August 97, 2022, when it stated it would be able to provide a further response “to Form Interrogatory 17.1(d) now that documents have been gathered and produced.” (Quattlebaum Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. D.)
Had Plaintiff complied, this motion would not have been necessary. Therefore, the Court agrees that sanctions are warranted against Plaintiff’s counsel for the delay in providing further responses and without providing an adequate explanation for the delay.
Defense Counsel Julian K. Quattlebaum, IV’s hourly rate is $500.00 per hour, and spent 5.0 hours drafting correspondence with Plaintiff’s Counsel. (Quattlebaum Dec. ¶ 9.) Craig Holden is a partner whose hourly rate is over $1,000.00 per hour and spent 2.0 hours drafting correspondence and meeting and conferring with Plaintiff’s Counsel. (Id.) Quattlebaum anticipated spending 5.0 hours reviewing Plaintiff’s opposition and Mr. Holden spending 2.0 hours reviewing the opposition, preparing for the hearing, and attending the hearing. (Id.) In total, CAA requests $9,000.00 in sanctions.
The Court finds the amount billed on this matter to be excessive and not requiring identical or similar work by 2 attorneys. The Court will credit Quattlebaum with two hours at his rate, and one hour for Holden at his rate. In total, the Court awards $2,000.00 in sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel of record.
CONCLUSION
Defendant CAA’s request to Compel Further Responses Form Interrogatories No. 17.1 is MOOT.
Defendant CAA’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,000.00 is GRANTED.
Moving party to give notice.