Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 22STCV05622, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV05622 Hearing Date: February 7, 2023 Dept: 31
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE
TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
tentative ruling
Plaintiff’s’s Motion to Compel Further responses to SROGS Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 19, 20, 21, 61, 62, and 63 is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $116.00 against Defendant is also GRANTED.
Moving party to give notice.
Background
On February 15, 2022, Plaintiff in pro per Bijan Yaghoobia filed a Complaint against self-represented Defendant Valaria Cruz and Does 1 to 100 for:
1) Waste;
2) Treble Damages;
3) Temporary Restraining Order;
4) Preliminary Injunction; and
5) Permanent Injunction.
On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Special Interrogatories, Set One.
No opposing papers or reply has been filed.
Legal Standard
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 (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete, (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections thereto. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21.)
Moreover, a notice of a motion to compel further must be filed within 45 days of service of the response or any supplemental response, or on or before any specific later day to which the propounding party and responding party may have agreed in writing. (CCP § 2030.300(c).) Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule (CRC) 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)).¿
Discussion
motion to Compel Further SROGS
Plaintiff asserts that on July 28, 2022, Plaintiff propounded sixty-three (63) Special Interrogatories, Set One (SROGS) on Defendant Valeria Cruz. (Yaghoobia Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Plaintiff sent Defendant a meet and confer letter on September 07, 2022, requesting a response by close of business on September 16, 2022. (Id., Ex. B.) A second and third meet and confer letter was sent on September 17, 2022, and September 22, 2022. (Id., Ex. C, D.)
Defendant served responses and objections to the SROGS on September 28, 2022. (Yaghoobia Decl. ¶ 2., Ex. E.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s responses were non-responsive, and Plaintiff sent Defendant another meet and confer letter asking Defendant to respond to the SROGS that were non-responsive. (Id., Ex. F.)
Defendant telephoned Plaintiff and informed Plaintiff that she did not know what she was supposed to do, and Plaintiff responded that she should contact the person or office that prepared her responses. (Id., Ex. G.) On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff sent Defendant a meet and confer letter explaining why her discovery responses were non-responsive and requested a response by close of business on Tuesday, October 18, 2022. (Id., Ex. H.)
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant committed and continues to commit waste on two subject properties in Los Angeles, CA. Plaintiff’s Separate Statement reveals he seeks further responses to SROGS Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 19, 20, 21, 61, 62, and 63.
Defendant's response to many of the SROGs was either incomplete or stated, “Not Applicable,” “Unknown at this time,” or “I do not recall.” The Court finds that Plaintiff’s responses to SROGS 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 19, 20, 21, 61, 62, and 63 were non-responsive, and a further response is required.
The Motion is GRANTED.
Request for Sanctions
Under the Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.300 subdivision (d) states:
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
Plaintiff’s notice of motion requested sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $116.00 for the cost of bringing this Motion, including the $60.00 filing fee.
Since Plaintiff failed to respond or oppose this Motion, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $116.00.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further responses to SROGS Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 19, 20, 21, 61, 62, and 63 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve code-compliant and verified responses within 30 days.
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $116.00 against Defendant is also GRANTED.
Moving party to give notice.