Case Number: 18STCV03486 Hearing Date: November 05, 2019 Dept: 37

HEARING DATE: November 5, 2019

CASE NUMBER: 18STCV03486

CASE NAME: Joseph F. Bohrer v. Ammigee1, LLC, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Joseph F. Bohrer

OPPOSING PARTY: No Opposition

TRIAL DATE: September 22, 2020

PROOF OF SERVICE: OK by mail on September 5, 2019

PROCEEDING: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and for Sanctions

OPPOSITION: Unopposed

TENTATIVE: Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve, within thirty days of this date, Code compliant answers to the Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories without objections, except for attorney client privileged responses. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $2,500. Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

This action arises from allegations that Defendants attempted to evict Plaintiff, an elderly disabled man, from an apartment at 1750 Purdue Ave., Los Angeles, California, because of his age and disability. This action follows and arises out of previous unlawful detainer actions. After a dispute as to Plaintiff’s late payment of rent, on June 7, 2018, Defendant Ammigee1, LLC filed an unlawful detainer action, Case 18SMUD001313. Judgment in that case was entered in favor of Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that thereafter, Defendant refused to accept his rent payments. On July 25, 2018, Defendant filed another unlawful detainer action, Case 18SMUD01634. On that occasion, judgment was initially entered in favor of Defendant. The rental and lease agreement for the property were cancelled and forfeited, and Plaintiff was to be evicted no sooner than September 18, 2018. However, on September 10, 2018, Plaintiff moved for relief from forfeiture of his lease, and on September 17, this motion was granted, conditional on Plaintiff’s paying his back rent. (Plaintiff alleges that in the intervening time, on September 11, he fell and seriously injured himself while packing his belonging and was hospitalized.)

Filed on November 2, 2018, the Complaint alleges causes of action for:

violation of the American with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.);

violation of Cal. Civil Code § 53 et seq. (discrimination against elderly tenant with disabilities);

violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 12955 (discrimination against elderly tenant with disabilities)

intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On January 16, 2019, this Court sustained the demurrer to Plaintiff’s 4th Cause of Action.

Meet and Confer

A motion to compel further responses “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.” Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b); 2031.310, subd. (b)(2). The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion. Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040. “[A] reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with [opposing] counsel . . . Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294 (Clement). “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate involves the exercise of discretion.” Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016, internal ellipses omitted. Where a party fails to make any real effort at informal resolution, a particularly egregious failure may justify an immediate and outright denial of further discovery. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 433-34, citing Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1437.)

Antoinette Marino, counsel for Plaintiff, declares that on May 24, 2019, she sent a meet and confer letter to Defense counsel discussing the objections raised by Defendants to the Form Interrogatories. (Marino Decl. ¶ 4.) Despite two response extensions granted by Plaintiff’s counsel, and multiple attempts by Plaintiff’s counsel to initiate communication, Defense counsel failed to respond. (Id. ¶¶ 8-13.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has complied with his meet and confer requirements pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(b)(1).

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories
I. Legal Standard

Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request shall be accompanied by a separate statement providing all information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses at issue. (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a), (c).) “Failure to include the separate statement required by CRC 3.1345 is ground for denial of [the] motion.” (Edmon & Karnow, Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) 8:1151.1.)

A motion to compel further responses to form or specially prepared interrogatories may be brought if the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a).)

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the¿burden is on the responding party¿to justify any objection or failure fully to answer.¿(Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also¿Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)
II. Analysis

As a preliminary matter, this motion is unopposed. “A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.” California Rules of Court 8.54(c).

Plaintiff argues that Defendants objected to all the Form Interrogatories by raising general objections, the attorney/client privilege, the work product doctrine, and financial privacy. Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories reads “Responding Party objects to each and all of Form Interrogatories 1.1 through 50.5 on the grounds set forth in the General Objections above.” (Response to Form Interrogatories, p. 2.)

In the facts at hand, Defendants asserted generic objections to an entire set of Form Interrogatories and failed to substantively confer or provide compliant responses despite Plaintiff’s willingness to postpone the filing of this present Motion. Defendant’s “General Objections” are overruled.

Given the absence of any opposition to this Motion and Defendants’ generic objections to the Form Interrogatories, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve, within thirty days of this date, Code compliant answers to the Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories without objections, except for attorney client privileged responses.

Plaintiff’s counsel declares that she has expended a conservative 30 hours in the preparation of the three motions to compel discovery. Counsel bills at $350 an hour. (Marino ¶ 15.) Counsel declares that she estimates a third of that time was spent on the present motion, and seeks $3,560 for attorney time and the $60 filing fee. (Id.)

Given the lack of opposition and simplicity of this motion, the Court finds $2500 to be a reasonable sanction for Defendant’s discovery abuse. The sanctions are to be paid within 30 days of this hearing.
B. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to the Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $2,500.