Case Name: Hector Rivera, et al. v. City of Sunnyvale, et al.
Case No.: 2013-1-CV-240935 (consolidated with 18-CV-321477)

Currently before the Court is the motion by defendant City of Sunnyvale (“City”) to compel plaintiff Casa De Amigos Investments Ltd. (“Casa”) to provide further responses to form interrogatories, set three (“FI”), special interrogatories, set five (“SI Set 5”), and special interrogatories, set six (“SI Set 6”), and for an award of sanctions.

Factual and Procedural Background

In this consolidated action, various plaintiffs have filed complaints regarding damage allegedly caused by subterranean tree roots and sewer depressions/sags. The consolidated action includes the following cases:

(1) Hector Rivera, et al. v. City of Sunnyvale, et al. (Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 2013-1-CV0240935) (“Rivera Action”)

(2) Casa De Amigos Investments Ltd. v. City of Sunnyvale (Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 18-CV-321477)

The Rivera Action was brought by plaintiffs Hector Rivera and Ramon Rivera (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), tenants and homeowners in a mobilehome park, alleging among other things negligence and dangerous condition of public property against City and Casa (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants filed cross-complaints against each other. Plaintiffs subsequently settled with Defendants and dismissed their complaint, leaving only the cross-complaints. A few years later, City voluntarily dismissed its cross-complaint against Casa.

On June 9, 2017, Casa filed a third amended cross-complaint (“TAXC”) against City in the Rivera Action, alleging causes of action for: (1) declaratory relief; (2) indemnification; (3) apportionment of fault; (4) injury to property; (5) nuisance; and (6) dangerous condition of public property.

City filed a demurrer to the TAXC and a motion to strike portions of the TAXC. City’s demurrer was overruled as to the first cause of action and sustained, without leave to amend, as to the sixth cause of action. City’s motion to strike was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the motion to strike was granted, without leave to amend, as to the second and third causes of action and paragraphs 40-46, 54, 90-94, 103, 104 and 105 of the TAXC. The motion to strike was denied in all other respects.

City subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication, which was denied. Thus, the claims that remain at issue in the Rivera Action are the first cause of action for declaratory relief, the fourth cause of action for injury to property, and the fifth cause of action for nuisance.
On January 4, 2018, Casa filed a complaint against City, alleging causes of action for: (1) injury to property; (2) nuisance; and (3) dangerous condition of public property.

Approximately one year later, Casa filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) against the City. According to the allegations of the FAC, Casa operates a mobilehome park and owns the sewer lines serving the mobilehome park. (FAC, ¶¶ 5-7.) City “was and is the owner and in possession and control of the sewer lines which run north to south from Persian Drive to and across Highway 237.” (Id. at ¶ 2.) The private sewer lines servicing the mobilehome park connect and empty into City’s “18 inch main located on Persian Drive, Sunnyvale, California.” (Id. at ¶ 7.) City’s “18 inch main commences with manhole 575-203 running north to manhole 586-205 (manhole numbers as designated on [City’s] Sewer Block Map) and under Persian Drive and Hwy 237 … ([hereinafter] ‘Persian Main’).” (Ibid.)

“To and through December 4, 2016, [City] … represented to [Casa] that there was a singular depression/sag in the Persian Main.” (FAC, ¶ 8.) Casa allegedly relied on City’s representation. (Ibid.)

On December 6, 2016, Casa “learned for the first time through an in camera inspection conducted by a hired expert and consultant, Mr. James Foley, P.E. [(‘Foley’)], that there are a series of multiple (not one) sags/depressions in the Persian Main which causes some amounts of raw sewage to always be stagnant in the Persian Main.” (FAC, ¶ 9.) Casa did not have any knowledge of the multiple sags/depressions in the Persian Main prior to December 6, 2016. (Ibid.) A City official present at the inspection of the Persian Main on December 6, 2016, allegedly told Foley that City “did not have the financial resources to undertake such an extensive repair to the Persian Main.” (Id. at ¶¶ 10 & 11.)
On June 5, 2017, Casa filed a written administrative claim with City regarding “the dangerous condition created by its sagging sewer lines and the stagnation and flow issues caused by the multiple sags in the Persian Main.” (FAC, ¶ 14.) The claim allegedly “discussed [City’s] failure to investigate and determine the multiple series of depressions in the Persian Main.” (Ibid.) Casa asked City to make repairs to the Persian Main and “abate the nuisance created by stagnant sewer.” (Ibid.) On July 6, 2017, City’s designated agent mailed written notice to Casa that the claim was rejected. (Ibid.) Casa allegedly complied with any and all administrative claim procedures prior to filing its action against City. (Ibid.)

Casa alleges that the unrepaired deficiencies in the Persian Main continue to cause sewage backup in its private sewer system. (FAC, ¶ 15.) The most recent sewer back up occurred from April 21 to April 22, 2017. (Ibid.) Casa further alleges that “[t]he standing and stagnant raw sewage constantly present in the series of multiple sags/depressions in the Persian Main creates a toxic and dangerous condition resulting in a public health, safety and welfare hazard.” (Id. at ¶ 16.) City “failed and refused to abate the nuisance created by the failing Persian Sewer Main.” (Id. at ¶ 17.)

Based on the foregoing allegations, Casa’s FAC alleges causes of action for: (1) failure to investigate; (2) nuisance; and (3) dangerous condition of public property.

On March 7, 2019, City filed an answer to the FAC, generally denying the allegations of the FAC and alleging various affirmative defenses.

Discovery Dispute

On August 27, 2018, City served Casa with the FI and SI Set 5 via U.S. mail. The parties apparently agreed to extend Casa’s time to respond to the discovery requests until October 13, 2018.

Thereafter, Casa served City with its responses to the FI and SI Set 5. City found some of those responses to be deficient. Consequently, City filed a motion to compel further responses to some of the discovery requests—specifically FI Nos. 7.1-7.3, 9.1, and 9.2 and SI Set 5 Nos. 15-31.

On April 16, 2019, City served Casa with the SI Set 6 via U.S. mail. The parties apparently agreed to extend Casa’s time to respond to the discovery requests to May 26, 2019.

City’s motion to compel further responses to FI Nos. 7.1-7.3, 9.1, and 9.2 and SI Set 5 Nos. 15-31 proceeded to hearing on April 23, 2019. According to the minute order from that hearing, Casa agreed to provide amended responses to the discovery requests and the Court denied City’s request for sanctions.

On May 6, 2019, the court order on City’s motion to compel further responses to some of the FI and SI Set 5 was filed. In the order, the Court adopted its tentative ruling, granting City’s motion, and ordered Casa to “provide code-compliant responses within 20 days.” That same day, City served Casa with notice of entry of that order via U.S. mail.

On May 31, 2019, Casa served City with responses to SI Set 6, first amended responses to FI Nos. 7.1-7.4, and amended responses to SI Set 5 Nos. 15-31 via U.S. mail.

City’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Casa’s counsel on June 11, 2019, regarding the responses served on May 31, 2019. City’s counsel noted that City did not receive any amended responses to FI Nos. 9.1 and 9.2. As is relevant here, City’s counsel also asserted that Casa’s amended responses to FI Nos. 7.1-7.3, SI Set 5 Nos. 15-17, 19, 21-23, 25, 26, 29, and 30, and SI Set 6 Nos. 32-37 were deficient. City’s counsel asked that Casa provide additional responses.

Subsequently, counsel for the parties continued to exchange emails and agreed to multiple extensions of City’s time to file a motion to compel further responses.

On July 30, 2019, Casa served City with second amended responses to FI Nos. 7.1-7.4 and amended responses to FI Nos. 9.1 and 9.2 via U.S. mail.

Thereafter, counsel for the parties exchanged emails regarding extensions of time for City to file a motion to compel further responses, ultimately agreeing that City had until August 22, 2019, to file such a motion.

On August 22, 2019, City filed the instant motion to compel further responses to FI Nos. 7.1-7.3, 9.1, and 9.2, SI Set 5 Nos. 15-17, 19, 21-26, 29, and 30, and SI Set 6 Nos. 32-37. Casa filed papers in opposition to the motion on October 8, 2019. On October 15, 2019, City filed a reply.

Discussion

City moves to compel Casa to provide further responses to FI Nos. 7.1-7.3, 9.1, and 9.2, SI Set 5 Nos. 15-17, 19, 21-26, 29, and 30, and SI Set 6 Nos. 32-37.

I. Request for Judicial Notice

Casa asks the Court to take judicial notice of several court records.

Those court records are referenced to provide background information and are not relevant to a material issue raised in City’s motion. Therefore, the Court declines to take judicial notice of those documents as they are not helpful or necessary to resolving the pending motion. (See Silverado Modjeska Recreation & Park Dist. v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 282, 307, fn. 18 [“ ‘There is … a precondition to the taking of judicial notice in either its mandatory or permissive form—any matter to be judicially noticed must be relevant to a material issue.’ [Citations.]”].)

Accordingly, Casa’s request for judicial notice is DENIED.

II. Meet and Confer

Preliminarily, City failed to meet and confer as to some of Casa’s discovery responses prior to filing the instant motion.

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must 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 Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040 & 2030.300, subd. (b).) A reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than argument with opposing counsel. (Townsend v. Super. Ct. (EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435, 1439 (Townsend).) It requires that the parties present the merits of their respective positions with candor, specificity, and support. (Ibid.) The level of effort at informal resolution that satisfies the “reasonable and good faith attempt” standard depends upon the circumstances of the case. (Obregon v. Super. Ct. (Cimm’s, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431 (Obregon).) Where there has been a failure to meet and confer, “[j]udges have broad powers and responsibilities to determine what measures and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstances.” (Ibid.) The court’s discretion includes the possibility of denying discovery altogether absent efforts to meet and confer. (See Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 1439; Obregon v. Super. Ct., supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 434 [court has discretion to deny discovery absent meet and confer].)

Here, City’s only substantive meet and confer effort regarding Casa’s responses to SI Set 6 and amended responses to the FI and SI Set 5 was its counsel’s letter to Casa’s counsel dated June 11, 2019. That letter does not address Casa’s amended response to SI Set 5 No. 24. Furthermore, that letter does not address Casa’s second amended responses to FI Nos. 7.1-7.3 and amended responses to FI Nos. 9.1 and 9.2, which were served on July 30, 2019. Consequently, City failed to meet and confer as to Casa’s second amended responses to FI Nos. 7.1-7.3, amended responses to FI Nos. 9.1 and 9.2, and amended response to SI Set 5 No. 24.

Accordingly, City’s motion to compel Casa to provide further responses is DENIED as to FI Nos. 7.1-7.3, 9.1, and 9.2, and SI Set 5 No. 24.

III. Remaining Requests

The remaining requests at issue are SI Set 5 Nos. 15-17, 19, 21-23, 25, 26, 29, and 30, and SI Set 6 Nos. 32-37.

A. Legal Standard

If a party demanding a response to an interrogatory deems that an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted or inadequate, or an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general, that party may move for an order compelling a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1)–(3).) If a timely motion to compel a further response to an interrogatory has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection to the discovery request. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

B. Objections

As an initial matter, City contends that Casa’s objections to SI Set 5 and SI Set 6 are waived because Casa’s initial responses to the requests were late.

“Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) The time to respond is extended by five days where service is made by U.S. mail. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013, subd. (a).)

Regarding SI Set 6, City served Casa with those requests via U.S. mail on April 16, 2019. City’s counsel declares that the parties agreed to extend Casa’s time to respond to May 26, 2019. (Helfrich Dec., ¶ 4; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.270, subd. (a) [“The party propounding interrogatories and the responding party may agree to extend the time for service of a response to a set of interrogatories, or to particular interrogatories in a set, to a date beyond that provided in Section 2030.260.”].) Casa served City with its responses to SI Set 6 via U.S. mail on May 31, 2019. (Helfrich Dec., ¶ 4, Ex. G.) Because Casa served City with its responses to SI Set 6 beyond the agreed upon deadline, its responses were untimely and all objections to SI Set 6 are waived. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a) [if a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party waives any objection to the interrogatories].)

With respect to SI Set 5, City served Casa with those requests via U.S. mail on August 27, 2018. City’s counsel declares that, “by stipulation of counsel, responses were due by October 13, 2018, but “Casa did not provide responses until October 26, 2018.” (Helfrich Dec., ¶ 5.) It is unclear from counsel’s conclusory statement whether City simply received or Casa actually served City with its initial responses to SI Set 5 on October 26, 2018. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1013, subd. (a) [service is complete at the time of deposit].) Moreover, City does not provide the Court with a copy of Casa’s initial responses to SI Set 5 or the accompanying proof of service. Thus, there is no way for the Court to determine when Casa served City with its initial responses to SI Set 5. Accordingly, City fails to establish that Casa’s objections to SI Set 5 are waived.

In any event, Casa does not attempt to defend any of its objections to SI Set 5 in opposition to the motion; rather, Casa merely argues that its substantive responses are sufficient. Thus, Casa’s undefended objections are deemed to be without merit and are overruled. (See Coy v. Super. Ct. (Wolcher, et al.) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

C. Substantive Responses

1. SI Set 5 No. 15 and SI Set 6 Nos. 32 and 35

SI Set 5 No. 15 asks Casa to state all facts supporting its contention that the defects in the Persian Main, as alleged in its pleading, “constitute a continuing nuisance (rather than a permanent nuisance).” SI Set 6 Nos. 32 and 35 ask Casa to state all facts showing how the continuing nuisance can be repaired by reasonable means and for a reasonable expense.

In response to SI Set 5 No. 15, Casa listed facts supporting its contention. For example, Casa stated that the nuisance could be abated at any time if City were to repair the sags and multiple depressions in the Persian Main, and City has proposed the installation of a sewer lift station to remedy and abate the sewer backup caused by the multiple depressions in the Persian Main. Casa also states that its expert, James Foley (“Foley”), is of the opinion that the Persian Main is “amenable to repair and abatement utilizing methods such as pipe inside the existing pipe, laying a whole new pipe, jack and bore under 237, back-reaming to establish new grade to existing pipe.” Casa explains that it “only knows generally of the name of these remedial measures as the specific details which require expert knowledge” are not within its knowledge.

In response to SI Set 6 Nos. 32 and 35, Casa lists facts that purportedly show how the continuing nuisance can be repaired by reasonable means and for a reasonable expense. For example, Casa stated that the nuisance could be abated at any time if City were to repair the sags and multiple depressions in the Persian Main. Casa further stated that repairs and remedies include the installation of a sewer lift station at the junction of Casa’s private sewer system and the Persian Main, installing pipe inside the existing pipe, laying a whole new pipe, jack and bore under 237, and back-reaming to establish new grade to existing pipe. Casa explains that it “only knows generally of the name of these remedial measures as the specific details which require expert knowledge” are not within its knowledge.

City initially asserts that Casa’s response to SI Set 5 No. 15 is deficient because “[i]t is unclear if [Casa] is indicating that a sewer lift station will be offered at trial as a means to abate the nuisance.” But the request does not ask Casa to state whether a particular method, such as a sewer lift station, will be offered at trial as a means to abate the nuisance. The request only asks Casa to state the facts that support its contention that the nuisance is continuing. Those facts, as provided by Casa, are that the alleged nuisance can be abated at any time, City has proposed a particular method to remedy the problem (i.e., a sewer lift station), and Casa’s expert is of the opinion that various other methods can be used to abate the nuisance. Thus, Casa’s response, as it currently stands, does not provide that a sewer lift station is, in fact, a means to abate the nuisance; rather, the fact proffered by Casa is simply that City has proposed a sewer lift station as a method to abate the nuisance.

City also contends that Casa’s responses to SI Set 5 No. 15 and SI Set 6 Nos. 32 and 35 are deficient because Casa identifies several potential abatement methods, but declines to provide “further information about them” even though it is obligated to provide facts known by its expert, Foley. This point is well-taken. It appears from Casa’s response that Casa may have omitted facts that support its positions on the basis that such facts are known only by Foley. An expert who has been retained by a party and designated as a trial witness, such as Foley, may be treated as the agent of that party, so that, in answering interrogatories, the party may be required to furnish facts known to the expert. (See Sigerseth v. Super.Ct. (Canoga Park Lutheran Church) (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427, 433.) Thus, Casa’s responses are incomplete to the extent they do not include responsive facts known by Foley.
Consequently, further responses are warranted to SI Set 5 No. 15 and SI Set 6 Nos. 32 and 35.

2. SI Set 5 No. 16 and SI Set 6 Nos. 33 and 36

SI Set 5 No. 16 asks Casa to identify all persons and/or entities “with knowledge of [its] response to Special Interrogatory No. 15.” Similarly, SI Set 6 Nos. 33 and 36 ask Casa to identify all persons and/or entities with knowledge of its responses to SI Set 6 Nos. 32 and 35.

In response to the requests, Casa provided the names of numerous individuals as well as their contact information.

City argues that Casa’s response to SI Set 5 No. 16 is deficient because it lists “nearly every person whose name has been mentioned in connection with [Casa’s] sewer system issues going back to 2010,” Casa lists City employees even though they do not believe “the condition of the Persian Main is a nuisance” or that “repairs under Hwy 237 can be reasonably undertaken,” and City doubts that any person listed, other than Foley, “has information regarding the nature of the alleged nuisance.” Similarly, City argues that Casa’s responses to SI Set 6 Nos. 33 and 36 are deficient because Casa provides the same list of persons in response to every interrogatory asking Casa to identified persons with certain knowledge.

Casa’s arguments lack merit. As an initial matter, the requests only asks Casa to list persons and entities with knowledge of Casa’s responses to SI Set 5 No. 15 and SI Set 6 Nos. 32 and 35. The requests do not ask Casa to list persons and entities with knowledge of the facts set forth in Casa’s responses to SI Set 5 No. 15 and SI Set 6 Nos. 32 and 35. In any event, Casa’s responses are fully code-compliant as they identify the persons who purportedly have knowledge of Casa’s responses to SI Set 5 No. 15 and SI Set 6 Nos. 32 and 35. Casa’s unilateral assertion that the identified persons do not actually possess such knowledge does not somehow make the response inadequate.

Nonetheless, as Casa must provide a further response to SI Set 5 No. 15 and SI Set 6 Nos. 32 and 35 and its responses to SI Set 5 No. 16 and SI Set 6 Nos. 33 and 36 depend upon its responses to the preceding requests, further responses are also warranted to SI Set 5 No. 16 and SI Set 6 Nos. 33 and 36.

3. SI Set 5 No. 17 and SI Set 6 Nos. 34 and 37

SI Set 5 No. 17 asks Casa to identify all documents supporting its response to SI Set 5 No. 15. Similarly, SI Set 6 Nos. 34 and 37 ask Casa to identify all documents supporting responses to SI Set 6 Nos. 32 and 35.

In its responses, Casa lists several documents by reference to their Bates-stamped numbers.

City asserts that Casa’s responses are deficient because Casa does not also summarize the contents of the identified documents.

City’s assertion is not well-taken. The discovery requests only ask Casa to identify the documents that support its responses. Casa has identified responsive documents by their Bates-stamped numbers and, therefore, provided all of the information sought by the requests. City does not present any legal authority, and the Court is aware of none, providing that Casa must also summarize the contents of the documents. The only case cited by City—Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 784 (Deyo)—merely states that a response must be complete and, therefore, if a question requires the responding party to make reference to a document, the document should be identified and summarized so the answer is fully responsive to the question. Here, the requests only require the identification of certain documents; they do not ask Casa to provide any other particular information that might be contained within those documents. Thus, the responses to the requests are complete.

Nonetheless, as Casa must provide further responses to SI Set 5 No. 15 and SI Set 6 Nos. 32 and 35 and its responses to SI Set 5 No. 17 and SI Set 6 Nos. 34 and 37 depend upon its responses to SI Set 5 No. 15 and SI Set 6 Nos. 32 and 35, further responses are also warranted to SI Set 5 No. 17 and SI Set 6 Nos. 34 and 37.

4. SI Set 5 No. 19

SI Set 5 No. 19 asks Casa to identify all persons or entities with knowledge of its response to SI Set 5 No. 18.

In response to the request, Casa provided the names of numerous individuals as well as their contact information.

City argues that Casa’s response is deficient because it lists “nearly every person whose name has been mentioned in connection with [Casa’s] sewer system issues going back to 2010.” City apparently doubts that the persons listed have the requisite knowledge.

City’s argument lacks merit. Casa’s response is fully code-compliant as it identifies the persons who purportedly have knowledge of Casa’s response to SI Set 5 No. 18. Casa’s belief that the identified persons do not actually possess the requisite knowledge does not somehow make the response inadequate.

For this reason, a further response to SI Set 5 No. 19 is not warranted.

5. SI Set 5 No. 21

SI Set 5 No. 21 asks Casa to state all facts supporting its contention that the defects in the Persian Main caused it to incur damages on or after July 6, 2016.

In response, Casa listed facts supporting its contention. For example, Casa stated “[d]ue to the inability of sewage to empty through the [Persian Main], [it] … experienced sewer backups and extra ordinary costs for flushing, clean up of sewage spills, installation of clean outs and other non-routine maintenance costs.” After indicating that its damages were the subject of prior discovery requests, Casa further states that it learned from Foley “that the condition of the Persian Main has and will continue to cause sewer back ups in Casa until [City] abates and repairs the multiple sags/depression and variations in elevations in the Persian Main.” Casa concludes that Foley “further opines that the presence of raw sewage in [Casa’s] sewer lines attract nutrient seeking tree roots of the Shamel Ash Trees along Persian to bore through the sewer lines.”

City’s conclusory assertion that “[Casa] fails to response to the question asked” lacks merit. Casa has set forth several facts that purportedly support its contention that the defects in the Persian Main caused it to incur damages on or after July 6, 2016.

Thus, a further response to SI Set 5 No. 21 is not warranted.

6. SI Set 5 Nos. 22, 25, and 29

SI Set 5 No. 22 asks Casa to identify all persons and/or entities “with knowledge of [its] response to Special Interrogatory No. 21.” Similarly, SI Set 5 No. 25 asks Casa to identify all persons and/or entities “with knowledge of [its] response to Special Interrogatory No. 24.” SI Set 5 No. 29 asks Casa to identify all persons and/or entities “with knowledge of [its] response to Special Interrogatory No. 28.”

In response to the requests, Casa provided the names of numerous individuals as well as their contact information.

City argues that Casa’s response to SI Set 5 No. 22 is deficient because it lists “the universe of persons with any involvement in [Casa’s] Persian Main complaint,” including City employees “who have no information about [Casa’s] damages claims.” Similarly, City argues that Casa’s responses to SI Set 5 Nos. 25 and 29 are deficient because they list “the universe of potential witnesses who have appeared in any capacity in this litigation.”

Casa’s argument lacks merit. As an initial matter, the requests only ask Casa to list persons and entities with knowledge of Casa’s responses to SI Set 5 Nos. 21, 25, and 29. The requests do not ask Casa to list persons and entities with knowledge of the facts set forth in Casa’s responses to SI Set 5 Nos. 21, 25, and 29. In any event, Casa’s responses are fully code-compliant as they identify the persons who purportedly have knowledge of Casa’s responses to SI Set 5 Nos. 21, 25, and 29. Casa’s unilateral assertion that the identified persons do not actually possess such knowledge does not somehow make the responses inadequate.

For this reason, further responses to SI Set 5 Nos. 22, 25, and 29 are not warranted.
7. SI Set 5 Nos. 23, 26, and 30

SI Set 5 No. 23 asks Casa to identify all documents supporting its response to SI Set 5 No. 21. Similarly, SI Set 5 No. 26 asks Casa to identify all documents supporting its response to SI Set 5 No. 24. SI Set 5 No. 30 asks Casa to identify all documents supporting its response to SI Set 5 No. 28.

In its responses, Casa lists several documents by reference to their Bates-stamped numbers.

City asserts that Casa’s responses are deficient because Casa does not also summarize the contents of the identified documents.

City’s assertion is not well-taken. The discovery requests only ask Casa to identify the documents that support its responses to SI Set 5 Nos. 23, 26, and 30. Casa has identified responsive documents by their Bates-stamped numbers and, therefore, provided all of the information sought by the requests. City does not present any legal authority, and the Court is aware of none, providing that Casa must also summarize the contents of the documents. The only case cited by City—Deyo—merely states that a response must be complete and, therefore, if a question requires the responding party to make reference to a document, the document should be identified and summarized so the answer is fully responsive to the question. Here, the requests only require the identification of certain documents; they do not ask Casa to provide any other particular information that might be contained within those documents. Thus, the responses to the request are complete.

Therefore, further responses to SI Set 5 Nos. 23, 26, and 30 are not warranted.

D. Conclusion

Accordingly, City’s motion is DENIED as to SI Set 5 Nos. 19, 21-23, 25, 26, 29, and 30. City’s motion is GRANTED as to SI Set 5 Nos. 15-17 and SI Set 6 Nos. 32-37. Within 30 days of the date of the filing of the order on this matter, Casa shall serve City with verified, code-compliant further responses to SI Set 5 Nos. 15-17 and SI Set 6 Nos. 32-37, without objections.

IV. Request for Sanctions

In its notice of motion, City states that it requests an award of sanctions. (Ntc. Mtn., p. 2:6-7.)

However, City’s request for sanctions is fatally deficient. City does not specifically identify the type of sanctions sought or the party or person against whom sanctions are sought in its notice of motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040 [“[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”].) Because its request for sanctions is not code-compliant, City is not entitled to an award of sanctions.

Accordingly, City’s request for sanctions is DENIED.