Lawzilla Additional Information
Per the Santa Clara Superior Court online records Michael Rantz is represented by Karyne Ghantous who is the subject of the sanctions.

Cross-Defendant United Specialty Insurance Company (“USIC”) moves the Court for an order compelling further responses to form interrogatories served on Cross-Claimant Michael Rantz (“Rantz”). USIC and Rantz both seek monetary sanctions in connection with the motion to compel.

USIC’s request that the Court take judicial notice of its first motion to compel further responses to the form interrogatories at issue in this case is GRANTED. The previously filed motion is a record of the superior court subject to judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d), and relevant to the matter presently before the Court. (See Stephan v. Garcia (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 497, 500 [the court may take judicial notice of its own file]; Gbur v. Cohen (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 296, 301 [information subject to judicial notice must be relevant to the issue at hand].)

Rantz’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The request is GRANTED as to the following documents: (1) Rantz’ Second Amended Complaint; (2) the complex designation application filed by Rantz and the joinder to the complex designation filed by North Wall Builders, Inc.; (3) the two ex parte applications for emergency relief filed by Rantz to stay discovery before the case was deemed complex; (4) Rantz’ motion to compel responses from USIC to Rantz’ form interrogatories, document requests, and requests for admission; (5) Judge Kleinberg’s orders deeming the case complex on August 12, 2013, removing the stay of discovery on December 3, 2013, and de-designating the case complex on January 15, 2014; (6) and Judge Klienberg’s order following the hearing on December 6, 2013. These documents are court records subject to judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d), and relevant to the matter presently before the Court. Rantz’ request for judicial notice is otherwise DENIED.

USIC’s motion to compel further responses to its Form Interrogatories – Construction Litigation is GRANTED. Rantz has not persuaded the Court that USIC’s motion is untimely. Rantz served USIC with his response to the form interrogatories on June 19, 2013. USIC timely filed its original motion to compel further responses to the interrogatories on July 31, 2013. The Court then stayed discovery on August 12, 2013, because the case was designated complex. The stay was lifted on December 6, 2013, and USIC promptly requested that Rantz respond to the interrogatories. When Rantz refused, USIC renewed its motion to compel. Rantz cites no authority for the proposition that the 45-day time limit starts over once a discovery stay is lifted. The Court therefore rejects that argument. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b) [memorandum of points and authorities must contain a concise statement of the law relied upon in support of the position advanced]; see also Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Assocs., Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934 [trial court not required to “comb the record and the law for factual and legal support that a party has failed to identify or provide”].) The Court also rejects Rantz’ arguments that USIC is required to re-serve the interrogatories, that USIC waived its right to further responses to the construction form interrogatories by serving other form interrogatories, and that USIC served the construction interrogatories for the sole purpose of harassing Rantz.

USIC’s request for monetary sanctions against Rantz and his counsel is GRANTED IN PART in the amount of $840. The court shall impose a monetary sanction 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. (Code Civ. Proc. [“CCP”], § 2030.300, subd. (d).) Monetary sanctions may be imposed in the amount of the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred as a result of the sanctionable conduct. (CCP, § 2023.030.) The Court finds that 4 hours at an hourly rate of $195 is a reasonable amount of time to have spent on the motion (4 hours x $195/hr + $60 Filing Fee = $840).

Rantz’ request for monetary sanctions is DENIED, as Rantz did not successfully oppose the motion to compel and did not act with substantial justification in opposing the motion. (CCP, § 2030.300, subd. (d).)