Case Number: KC068922 Hearing Date: April 16, 2018 Dept: J

Re: Anthony Aguilar v. Rue Royale LLC, et al. (KC068922)

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF ANTHONY AGUILAR’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Moving Party: Defendant Rue Royale LLC

Respondent: No timely opposition filed (due 4/3/18)

POS: Moving OK

In this landlord/tenant dispute, the complaint, filed 12/13/16, asserts causes of action against Rue Royale LLC, Rose Jones (“Jones”) and Does 1-10 for:

1. Breach of Contract

2. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

3. Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

4. Fraud

5. Nuisance

6. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

7. Punitive Damages

8. Negligence

On 4/4/17, the court sustained Rue Royale, LLC’s and Jones’ demurrer to the fourth and seventh causes of action without leave to amend. The Final Status Conference is set for 10/15/18. A jury trial is set for 10/23/18.

Defendants Rue Royale LLC and Rose Jones (“defendants”) move the court for an order, per CCP §2030.300, compelling Plaintiff Anthony Aguilar (“plaintiff”) to provide further responses to their Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, Nos. 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 7.1, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 12.2, 12.6, 12.7, 14.1, 50.2, 50.4 and 50.5. Defendants also seek sanctions against plaintiff in the amount of $1,260.00.

At the outset, the court notes that, while the motion purports to have been filed on behalf of both defendants, Exhibit “A” to the Declaration of Cleidein Z. Atanous (“Antanous”) reflects that the subject discovery was propounded by Rue Royale only. The ruling, then, does not pertain to Jones.

“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 any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” CCP § 2030.300(a). “A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” CCP § 2030.300(b). “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” CCP § 2030.300(b).

On 5/12/17, Rue Royale served the subject discovery on plaintiff. (Atanous Decl., ¶ 4, Exhibit “A”). On 10/2/17, the court granted Rue Royale’s motion to compel answers to the subject discovery and ordered plaintiff to serve verified responses, without objections, within 10 days. On 12/2/17, plaintiff served his responses thereto. (Id., ¶ 7, Exhibit “B”). On 12/22/17, Rue Royale’s counsel Kelly Johnson (“Johnson”) sent a meet and confer letter to plaintiff, requesting, inter alia, that he remove his objections to his responses to the subject discovery and specifically requested further responses to Nos. 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 8.3 and 8.7. (Id., ¶ 8, Exhibit “C”). On 1/8/18, Johnson requested that plaintiff provide further responses by 1/11/18. (Id., ¶ 10, Exhibit “D”). Plaintiff did not respond to the 1/8/18 correspondence and has not served further responses or requested an extension, as of the date of the filing of the motion. (Id., ¶¶ 11 and 12). The motion, then, was timely filed.

The court orders plaintiff’s objections to Nos. 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 7.1, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 12.2, 12.6, 12.7, 14.1, 50.2, 50.4 and 50.5 stricken, inasmuch as its 10/2/17 order expressly stated that verified responses were to be made without objections. Since plaintiff’s response to Nos. 6.4 consisted solely of objections, a further response is warranted. Also, plaintiff’s substantive responses to No. 6.5, 6.7, 8.3 and 8.7 are improper, as he would undoubtedly be in possession of this information; as such, further responses are warranted. Further verified responses to these interrogatories without objections, are ordered to be served by plaintiff within 10 days.

Rue Royale does not appear to otherwise take issue with plaintiff’s responses to Nos. 7.1, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 12.2, 12.6, 12.7, 14.1, 50.2, 50.4 and 50.5, apart from plaintiff’s improper assertion of objections. The court declines to order plaintiff to provide any further substantive responses to these interrogatories, as Rue Royale did not meet and confer regarding same.

Sanctions are awarded, in the reduced amount of $860.00 [calculated as follows: 2 hours preparing motion, plus two hours attending hearing at $200.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee]. The sanctions are payable by plaintiff to counsel for defendants within 10 days.