Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Sacramento court records plaintiff is represented by attorney Alvin Lee. Lawzilla believes the tentative ruling below became the final ruling of the court after no argument or hearing was requested.

2016-00205546-CU-DF

Veronika Vorobyov vs. Pardeep Sharma

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Filed By: Caldwell, Craig A.

*** If oral argument is requested, the parties must at the time oral argument is requested notify the clerk and opposing counsel of the specific discovery requests that will be addressed at the hearing. Counsel are also reminded that pursuant to local rules, only limited oral argument is permitted on law and motion matters. ***

Defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff’s further responses to special interrogatories and requests for production is GRANTED, as follows.

The notice of motion does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1010 or CRC Rule 3.1110(a).

The moving papers fail to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(4).

Plaintiff’s counsel again failed to timely file and serve the opposition papers (since 3/30/2018 was a court holiday) but they were nevertheless considered.

Plaintiff’s counsel again failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3)-(4).

Factual Background

Plaintiff is a sole proprietor operating a wedding and event planning business, as well as a volunteer for several other organizations. Her complaint alleges that defendants own and/or operate various banquet halls in northern California, hosting weddings, receptions and other events. In short, plaintiff asserts that defendants slandered plaintiff and her business, causing harm to her reputation and the loss of business. Her complaint also alleges a claim of unfair business practices in violation of Business

& Professions Code §17200 et seq. Trial is currently set for 5/29/2018.

Defendants recently propounded special interrogatories and requests for production to plaintiff. Defendants now seek to compel further responses to several of each set, while plaintiff maintains that her objections to all of the discovery requests at issue are proper.

Analysis

At the outset, the court must reject plaintiff’s suggestion that defendants failed to make a reasonable and good faith effort to meet-and-confer before filing this motion since plaintiff’s counsel admits he was, due to another trial, unable to timely respond to

defendants’ letter and since trial of this action is currently set to commence on 5/29/2018. Under ordinary circumstances, the court would indeed expect defendants to pursue further meet-and-confer efforts before filing this type of motion since Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431 clarifies that the meet-and-confer process is not intended to be some perfunctory formality but rather it “requires…a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Id., at 1438.)

Special Interrogatory Nos. 8-13 are essentially identical and ask for plaintiff’s total business income for the years 2012 through 2017, in order to determine the amount of income (if any) plaintiff lost as a result of defendants’ alleged conduct. Plaintiff objected to each of these questions on the grounds they not only invade the privilege set forth in the Revenue & Tax Code but also invade plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy in her financial matters. The court holds that defendants are entitled to the requested information on plaintiff’s business income since plaintiff has alleged she lost business income as a result of defendants’ conduct. Accordingly, plaintiff shall provide further responses to each of these interrogatories but defendants shall not use or disclose this information for any purpose outside of the present litigation.

Special Interrogatory No. 14 seeks the total amount of money plaintiff claims to have lost to date as a result of defendants’ alleged conduct. Plaintiff objected to this question on the ground it was asked and answered. This is not a valid objection but regardless, it does not appear plaintiff has previously provided this information. Even assuming she has, the court finds no undue burden in providing it again in response to this interrogatory. Therefore, plaintiff shall provide a further response to this interrogatory as well.

Request for Production Nos. 1-10 are essentially the same, seeking all documents relating to the various individuals referenced during plaintiff’s deposition. Plaintiff objected to each of these requests on the grounds they are vague and ambiguous, overly broad and seek information not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. While these requests could have been more carefully crafted, none of the asserted objections justify plaintiff’s blanket refusal to provide responses in conformity with Code of Civil Procedure §2031.220 et seq. and this is particularly true if plaintiff has no responsive documents. If plaintiff does have possession, custody of control of responsive documents, defendants are entitled to them as the court is persuaded they are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and also may assist the parties in any settlement efforts. Consequently, plaintiff must provide further responses to each of these requests.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff shall provide verified further responses, without objections, to defendants’ special interrogatories and requests for production of documents no later than 4/15/2018 (unless defendants agree to a later date memorialized in writing).

Finding that plaintiff’s opposition to the present motion was not substantially justified under the circumstances, defendants are awarded monetary sanctions against plaintiff in the amount of $780, representing four hours of attorney time plus $120 in filing fees. Sanctions to be paid by plaintiff no later than 5/4/2018 and if not paid by that date, defendants may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment against plaintiff. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)