On 21 February 2014, the motion of Patricia L. Hairston (“Defendant”) to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One), request for production of documents and electronically stored information (Set One), and for monetary sanctions was argued and submitted. The 704 Group, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed formal opposition to the motion.

Plaintiff is reminded that all papers must comply with Rule of Court 3.1110(f).

Statement of Facts

This action arises from a dispute regarding the transfer of a spouse’s interest in community real property. During their marriage, Defendant and her now-estranged husband, Defendant John H. Hairston (“Mr. Hairston”), owned a home as community property. Sometime before June 2009, Mr. Hairston departed, and his whereabouts remain unknown. In August 2009, Mr. Hairston executed an account that and Transfer Deed that transferred title to their home to Defendant as her separate property.

In late 2009, Mr. Hairston had a negative account balance in his personal account at Chase Bank. Chase Bank assigned its interest in that debt to Plaintiff, a collections agency. Plaintiff filed a small claims action against Mr. Hairston on 7 January 2013 (Santa Clara Case No. 1-13-CV-239001) (“Small Claims Action”), and Mr. Hairston failed to answer the complaint. A default judgment was entered against Mr. Hairston on 22 April 2013.

On 10 May 2013, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant and Mr. Hairston, to set aside the transfer of property.

Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff, seeking to set aside the default judgment against her husband.

On 16 September 2013, the Honorable Judge Stoelker sustained Plaintiff’s demurrer to Defendant’s cross-complaint, without leave to amend.

Discovery Dispute

On 25 June 2013, Defendant properly served Plaintiff by mail with Special Interrogatories (“SI”) (Set One), and request for documents and electronically stored information. On 29 July 2013, Plaintiff served its objections to SI, Set One. And served objections to the request for production of documents and electronically stored documents.

On 12 August 2013, Defendant mailed a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff, requesting supplemental responses. On 12 September 2013, Defendant filed a motion to compel further responses, which was granted by the Court.

On or about 9 December 2013, Plaintiff served supplemental responses via facsimile that allegedly includes incomplete responses and incomplete document production.

On 24 December 2013, Defendant mailed a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff on this matter, requesting additional supplemental responses to SI (Set One) and document production (Set One).

On 6 January 2014, Plaintiff faxed and emailed a response to Defendant’s meet and confer letter. Defendant does not mention this in their Points and Authorities.

On 16 January 2014, Defendant filed current motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One), request for production of documents and electronically stored information (Set One), and for monetary sanctions.

Discussion

I. “Meet and Confer” Issues

In the opposition papers, Plaintiff makes statements to the effect that this Court is encouraging Defendant to rush through discovery without making proper meet and confer attempts. Should the matter proceed to a hearing, this Court will ask Plaintiff to elaborate on those suggestions.

A motion to compel further responses shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration “showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 2016.040, 2030.300, subd. (b), 2031.310, subd. (b)(2), and 2033.290, subd. (b).) A reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than argument with opposing counsel. It requires that the parties present the merits of their respective positions with candor, specificity, and support. (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435, 1439.) The level of effort at informal resolution which satisfies the “reasonable and good faith attempt” standard depends upon the circumstances of the case. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.) The court has discretion to deny discovery absent efforts to meet and confer, but must consider whether a less drastic remedy is appropriate given the circumstances presented. (See Townsend v. Supererior Court, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 1439, Obregon v. Superior Court, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 434.)

As this Court has viewed the matter, the parties here have an inability to get along and the court is not sure how much more meet and confer would be sufficient. Therefore, this Court will proceed to the merits.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 3, 4, 7, and 11

Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300 (a) (1) provides that a propounding party may move for an order compelling further response if the propounding party deems that the answer is evasive or incomplete.

SI, Set One, Nos. 3, 4 and 7 request the Plaintiff to identify all persons known to have knowledge concerning the subject account as it relates to the State Court Trial.

Here, Plaintiff has identified Mr. Brkich as an employee of the 704 Group with knowledge of the Defendant’s account. Plaintiff has provided Mr. Brkich’s business address and contact information. However, Defendant requests his home address and home phone number. As stated in Plaintiff’s 6 January 2014 meet and confer letter, Plaintiff’s Counsel would be willing to provide Mr. Brkich at any time for a deposition, trial, or testimony under oath. Furthermore, Mr. Brkich can also be contacted at his place of business. Providing his home phone number would subject this witness to undue burden.

The Plaintiff also identifies several other businesses (Turtle Creek Assets, LTD, Forward Properties International, Inc, SKW Capital, LLC, Blackstone Financial Group, LLC, Haven Acquisition Management, LLC, Premier Asset Management, LLC, and Capital Debt Solutions) that were connected to the subject account, but does not provide any contact information. Individuals from each of these companies signed the Bill of Sale documents produced by Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff knows the correct person to contact from each of these companies, it is reasonable for them to produce the correct person to contact at each of these firms.

SI, Set One, No. 11 requests a step by step answer, which details Proof of Service of Summons, including a reference to a document. (Exhibit A). Plaintiff provided an answer which shows a document courier picked up and served a Summons and Complaint, filed it physically in court, and served the defendant’s home address.

The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs shall respond to requests for contact information for the companies connected to the subject account without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order. Defendants shall contact Mr. Brkich via his place of business or through Plaintiff’s Counsel.

II. Motion to Compel Document Production and Electronically Stored Information, Set One, Nos. 3 and 17

Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310 (a) (1) provides that a party may move for an order compelling further response to a demand if the demanding party deems the demand is incomplete.

Here, Defendant is requesting all documents related to Plaintiff’s purchase of the debt Mr. Hairston owed Chase Bank. Plaintiff has produced seven Bill of Sale documents. These documents were part of a larger document, but parts of the document are illegible. Defendant believes that the larger document contained disclaimers against collectors made by the original creditor when Mr. Hairston’s account was sold to the Plaintiff.

In Plaintiff’s response letter on 6 January 2013, counsel stated the documents will be provided the week of 13 January 2014, because the documents were not in their possession before. It is unclear from the Defendant’s documentation if they received the additional documentation from the Plaintiff before they filed their current motions.

The motion is DENIED. If Plaintiff has complied and sent the requested documentation, then this motion is moot. Defendant shall work with Plaintiff to see if correct documents have been produced.

III. Motion for Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff and Defendant make a request for monetary sanctions. The requests are not code-compliant.

Code of Civil Procedure, § 2023.040 states:

“A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.”

Here, Plaintiff has not identified the type of sanction being sought. Instead, Plaintiff simply lists verbatim the California Code of Civil Procedure, § 2023.

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010 defines acts that constitute misuses of the discovery process, and does not itself set forth any provisions regarding the issuance of a monetary sanction. Next, section 2023.030 provides that sanctions may be imposed for misuses of the discovery process “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title.” As such, section 2023.030 does not provide an independent basis for an award of sanctions.

Here, the Plaintiff also acted with substantial justification, responding to Defendant’s meet and confer letter in an attempt to have the witness deposed or made to answer questions under oath. Plaintiff’s counsel also sought to get Defendant the documents requested, as they became available.

In their Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Defendant also refers to Code of Civil Procedure, § 2031.300(a) which provides that sanctions shall be imposed against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for production, unless they acted with substantial justification.

Here, the Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s meet and confer letter and is attempting to provide the necessary documents. Since the motion was granted in part and denied in part, this Court finds the Plaintiff acted with substantial justification.

The Plaintiff and Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED.

Conclusion

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 3, 4, 7, and 11is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs shall respond to requests for contact information for the companies connected to the subject account without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order. Defendants shall contact Mr. Brkich via his place of business or through Plaintiff’s Counsel. The Motion to Compel Document Production and Electronically Stored Information, Set One, Nos. 3 and 17 is DENIED. Plaintiff and Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED.