Case Number: BC529914 Hearing Date: June 23, 2014 Dept: 34

Moving Party: Plaintiff Rancho Dominguez Equity LLC dba Rancho Tech Center

Resp. Party: Defendant Christy Nguyen (“defendant” or “Nguyen”)

The Court orders defendant Nguyen to provide contact information for Nga Dinh and Hai T. Ly. In all other respects, Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant Nguyen’s further responses to form interrogatories is DENIED.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:

The Court notes that defendant’s opposition memorandum exceeds the 15-page limit. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d).) It appears that the first ten pages of the memorandum contain responses to plaintiff’s separate statement. The better course of action would have been for defendant to prepare a responsive separate statement, rather than addressing the issues in the memorandum. The remainder of defendant’s opposition appears to primarily address arguments and assertions raised in plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant’s deposition and production of documents, which is set for 7/16/14. The Court has not read that motion and declines to consider its merits prior to its scheduled hearing date.

Moreover, defendant fails to separate her exhibits with hard tabs, in violation of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f).

Of greater concern is the fact that the parties were unable to resolve this issue. The court does not understand why counsel did not avail themselves of the court’s offer to informally resolve this discovery dispute in lieu of filing a formal motion to compel – a process that would have taken 10 minutes. (See Dept. 34 Orders, ¶ III, available at http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtroominformation/ui/resultpopup.aspx?value=LAM/34.) Instead, the parties spent at least $3,000 -$4,000 in attorneys fees litigating this motion.

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff commenced this action against Nguyen and Nga Dinh on 12/10/13 for breach of lease. Plaintiff alleges that defendants breached a lease between the parties by failing to pay rent when due.

On 2/20/14, Nguyen filed a cross-complaint against the moving parties for declaratory relief and negligence. Nguyen alleges that cross-defendants represented Nguyen in the lease transaction with plaintiff. (Cross-Compl., ¶ 1.) Nguyen alleges that cross-defendants negligently advised Nguyen as to opening a restaurant business. (Id., ¶¶ 2-25.) Nguyen seeks a declaration that the lease is unenforceable because it was not signed by all parties. (See id., ¶¶ 27-43.)

On 5/7/14, the Court granted cross-defendants TDL International Law Firm APLC, et al.’s motion to strike references to punitive damages in the cross-complaint. Cross-defendants’ motion to strike was otherwise denied. The Court also denied plaintiff’s motion to strike the cross-complaint.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to form interrogatory numbers 9.1, 9.2, and 15.1.

Interrogatory number 9.1 asks defendant if there are any other damages she attributes to the incident and, if so, to state the nature, the date the damages occurred, the amount, and the contact information of the person to whom an obligation occurred. Defendant responded in the affirmative. She identified the nature of the damages as “[r]eturn of security deposit” and “[r]efund of merchandise/equipment purchase from the premise in question.” She stated that these damages occurred during the negotiation of the lease rider #2 and the lease, respectively. The damages amounts are $12,684.00 and $25,000.00, respectively. The person affected was plaintiff. This answer sufficiently responds to the interrogatory. Plaintiff takes issue with the response because defendant did not specifically describe the merchandise/equipment for which she seeks a refund and does not provide proof of the damages. The interrogatory does not ask for such specifics, and instead merely seeks the general nature of the damages, which defendant provided. Therefore, defendant need not provide a further response to form interrogatory number 9.1.

Interrogatory number 9.2 asks defendant if any documents support the existence or amount of any damages claimed in number 9.1 and, if so, to describe the document and provide contact information of a person who has the document. In response, defendant identified the lease and lease rider # 2, and the record of payments. Defendant also provided the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the persons who have the documents. Defendant’s response fully and sufficiently responds to the interrogatory that was asked. Plaintiff argues that defendant fails to identify documents relating to the damages from the merchandise/equipment, but defendant refers to the “[r]ecord of payments” and informs plaintiff of where it can obtain such documents. There is no showing that defendant is in possession of any other documents to support the alleged damages. To the extent that these documents do not support the damages request, plaintiff can raise this issue in a motion for summary judgment.

Interrogatory number 15.1 asks defendant to provide information (i.e., facts, contact information of witnesses, documents) to support her allegations and affirmative defenses in her pleadings. Defendant’s response to this interrogatory are generally sufficient. Plaintiff takes issue with the fact that defendant fails to provide contact information for Nga Dinh and Hai T. Ly.

It is not clear to the Court that these are persons who have knowledge of the facts asserted. Further, rather than spending the time on this motion to compel, plaintiff could have simply propounded another Interrogatory asking for contact information for these two people.

Nonetheless, to avoid another round of discovery, the Court iwll order defendant to supply the contact information for Nga Dinh and Hai T. Ly.

Sanctions

The Court “shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response . . . 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., § 2030.300(d).) A request for sanctions “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)

Plaintiff’s counsel requests $2,000 in attorneys fees.

As indicated above in the Court’s Preliminary Comments, this discovery dispute could have been resolved in an Informal Discovery Conference lasting less than 15 minutes. The Court declines to award sanctions.