Judge Yolanda Orozco, Case BC718664 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: BC718664, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC718664 Hearing Date: August 26, 2022 Dept: 31

MOTION COMPELLING FURTHER

DISCOVERY RESPONSES IS CONTINUED

Background

The present action arises from Nazareth M. Haysbert’s (“Plaintiff”) tenancy within a rental housing property, located at Columbia Place in Los Angeles, California (“subject property”). Plaintiff brings the present action against various City of Los Angeles employees based upon their alleged failure to maintain and enforce the habitability of the subject property, identify and facilitate the abatement of substandard conditions present within the subject property, conduct scheduled inspections of the subject property, verify compliance with state health and safety and building codes, and enforce code violations present within the subject property.

On August 22, 2018, Plaintiff initiated the present action by filing a Complaint.

On February 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.

On April 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint against John Polikolsky, Luis Nunezuribe, Buu Truong, Jeff Bergman, Scott Taylor, David Owen, Sean Eliot, Rolando Elviraordonez, David H. Wright, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, City of Los Angeles, and Does 1-20 (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint alleges the following causes of action against Defendants: (1) Negligence; (2) Nuisance; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (4) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (5) P.U.C. § 2106; and (6) Injunction.

Plaintiff asserts that per the Court Order dated February 9, 2022, Plaintiff is bringing a Motion to compel Defendants’ further responses, as the forty-five (45) day deadline was tolled given that the Informal Discovery Conference could not be held. (Min. Or. 02/09/22.)

Defendants filed Opposition papers on August 12, 2022.

No Reply has been filed.

Meet and Confer Requirement

Plaintiff’s counsel, Nazareth M. Haysbert, filed a declaration attesting to the Parties' meet and confer statements. (Haysbert Decl. Ex. E-J.) Thus, the meet and confer requirement is made.

Legal Standard- Compel Further

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a), and 2033.290, parties may move for a further response to interrogatories, request for production and 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., §§ 2030.30(c); 2031.310(c); 2033.290(c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b); 2031.310(b); 2033.290(b).)

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

1. Procedural Defects

Plaintiff filed a single motion seeking further responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production. Since Plaintiff seeks further responses to four different sent of discovery responses, Plaintiff was required to file separate motions and pay the fees for each motion.

2. Motion to Compel Further Discovery

Plaintiff has filed a single motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production.

Defendants assert they have responded fully and as completely as possible to Plaintiff’s discovery. Defendants assert they provided valid legal objections and answered Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests as best they could.

Defendants also point out that Plaintiff’s Separate Statement is not in compliance with CRC rule 3.1345(c) because it fails to include:

(1) The text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection demand;

(2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers;

(3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute;

(4) If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it;

Accordingly, the Motion fails to provide the Court with “all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all responses to it that are at issue.” (CRC rule 3.1345(c).)

A trial court has the discretion to deny a motion to compel discovery based on the party’s failure to comply with the separate statement requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.3145(a). (See Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal. App. 4th 871, 893 [holding failure to include separate statements required by California Rules of Court provided justification of trial court’s denial of a discovery motion.].)

Defendants submitted their own Separate Statement responding fully and as completely as possible to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Despite Defendants’ response, the Court cannot ascertain “[t]he text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection demand.” (CRC rule 3.1345(c).)

For example, Plaintiff seeks responses to special interrogatories 2, 5, 8, 11, 16, 20, 2, 23, 24, 30, and 31, and provides a general summary of why Plaintiff is seeking a further response, but Plaintiff does not state what specific information is requested by each interrogatory, request for admission, or document production.

Moreover, Defendants’ response to interrogatory 5 is an objection that simply states: “This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as phrased. It lacks foundation and calls for speculation. It is impermissibly compound, conjunctive, and disjunctive.” Without knowing what specific information interrogatory 5 seeks, the Court cannot determine whether the objection is valid or if a further response is required.

Accordingly, the hearing is CONTINUED to allow Plaintiff to file a separate statement in full compliance with CRC rule 3.1345(c).

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is CONTINUED to September 30, 2022, at 8:30 a.m.

Plaintiff is also ordered to file and pay separate fees for each Motion to Compel Further.

Plaintiff is to give notice.

The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All social distancing protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.