Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records plaintiff is represented by attorney Michael Schwimer whose law firm is being sanctioned by the court.

MARSHA MALAMET,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANCES COYLE,
et. al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC669374

Hearing Date: April 25, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

DEFENDANT’S motion to compel FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIEs

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Marsha Malamet (“Plaintiff”) sues Defendants Frances Coyle (“Coyle”); Jeremy Tarr; Holly Rogers; Michael Tarr; Dale Tarr; and Brad Spring (collectively, “Defendants”) for housing discrimination; unlawful collection of excess rent; failure to pay interest on security deposit; unlawful eviction; failure to pay relocation fees; tenant harassment; retaliatory eviction; failure to return security deposit; breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment; assault; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; breach of the implied warranty of habitability; and nuisance. Plaintiff alleges Defendants owned the property located at 610 North Van Ness, Los Angeles, CA 90004 (“the Property”), and were in the business of renting and managing the Property. Plaintiff alleges she leased an apartment at the Property in or around 2007 pursuant to a written lease agreement.

DISCUSSION

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 an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP 2030.300(a)(3).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the form interrogatories (“FIs”) and special interrogatories (“SIs”). (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

On January 12, 2018, Defendants served Special Interrogatories on Plaintiff. (Exh. A.) As set forth in the motion, these responses were due on February 16, 2018. Defendants granted a two week extension to Plaintiff on January 23, 2018 and another two week extension on February 27, 2018. (Exh. B, C.) On March 14, 2018, Plaintiff requested an additional one week extension. (Opp Exh. 2.) On March 16, 2018, Plaintiff served only objections to all special interrogatories stating identical objections on the basis that the interrogatories are all vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, call for expert testimony, call for a legal conclusion, lacks foundation, assumes facts not in evidence, violates the attorney-client privilege, violates privacy rights, violates the attorney work-product doctrine and are not likely to led to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Exh. D.) Further in the responses Plaintiff states, “Plaintiff has not had adequate time to prepare responses to these interrogatories. Plaintiff requested an additional one-week extension from Defendant to complete the response, but Defendant unreasonable [sic] and in bad faith refused to grant the extension. Plaintiff intends to supplement this response.” (Exh. D.) Plaintiff did not serve supplement responses by April 2, 2018 when Defendant filed this motion. Parties met and conferred on March 19, 2018. (Exh. E; Opp 3:11-13.) Plaintiffs served supplemental responses on April 11, 2018. (Opp 4:10-11.)

In opposition, Plaintiff does not substantiate the asserted objections. Plaintiff contends the motion should be denied because supplemental responses were served. Further, when a party serves supplemental responses after a motion to compel further responses has been filed, a court has substantial discretion in deciding how to rule in light of the particular circumstances present. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409.)

In reply, the Defendant further contends that the supplemental responses are deficient in that the same response was provided to each interrogatory and is not tailored to the request.

Accordingly, the Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff to provide supplemental responses, without objections, within 15 days of receipt of this notice.

Defendant moves for monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,680 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record per CCP § 2030.300. The Court grants the request for sanctions in the reduced amount of $2,800.00 (7 hours at $400 per hour) payable within 10 days of receipt of notice of this ruling.