california taxpayers action network,

Plaintiff,

vs.

gdl best contractors, inc., et al.

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 656614 (r/w BS 161779)

Hearing Date:

March 8, 2018

Hearing Time:

8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

Background

Plaintiff California Taxpayers Action Network (“CTAN”) filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief to Recover Illegal Expenditures of Public Funds on April 5, 2017 against Defendants GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (“GDL”), Francisco M. Lopez, Jose C. Lopez, and Benjamin Lopez (collectively, “Defendants”). The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on November 8, 2017. The gravamen of the FAC is the allegation by CTAN that GDL entered into an illegal or invalid contract with Real Party in Interest Montebello Unified School District (“MUSD”) for performance of a certain project within the district and thus should have the monies paid under that contract disgorged. The alleged basis for CTAN’s standing is that at least one of its members resides in and pays real property taxes within the geographical jurisdiction of MUSD.

On May 31, 2017, Defendants served Special Interrogatories, Set One on CTAN. (Sloan Decl., ¶ 3) CTAN served its responses on July 18, 2017. (Sloan Decl., ¶ 6.)

On July 27, 2017, Defendants’ counsel sent meet and confer correspondence to CTAN regarding certain deficiencies in CTAN’s responses. (Sloan Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 4.) Because some of the responses included a request for a protective order, Defendants’ counsel also prepared a proposed protective order. (Sloan Decl., ¶ 8.) On August 25, 2017, Defendants’ counsel sent a follow-up letter. (Sloan Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. 5.) On August 29, 2017, Defendants’ counsel received an email from a paralegal for CTAN’s counsel granting a thirty-day extension to file a motion to compel and indicating an intention to meet and confer. (Sloan Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. 5.) As of October 6, 2017, Defendants have not received any further communication or further verified responses from CTAN. (Sloan Decl., ¶ 11.)

Defendants now move to compel further responses from CTAN to the Special Interrogatories and also request monetary sanctions. CTAN opposes.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a) permits a propounding party to move for an order compelling a further response to an interrogatory if the propounding party deems that an answer is “evasive or incomplete” or that an objection is “without merit or too general.” Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 requires that each answer to an interrogatory must be as “complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a).) Further, “[i]f an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(b).)

Special Interrogatory Nos. 1-4 and 8-12

Defendants contend that CTAN failed to substantively respond to relevant requests related to CTAN’s standing to bring the action, namely, Special Interrogatory Nos. 1-4 and 8-12. CTAN, in its opposition, asserts that the FAC no longer contains the allegation that CTAN has a member who resides in the MUSD. (Opp’n, p. 2: 7-8.) CTAN also asserts that it already has disclosed the names of its board members (through the production of documents), at least one of whom owns real property in California and pays taxes directly to the state, which is sufficient to establish taxpayer standing. (Opp’n, p. 2: 8-10.) Moreover, as a public-interest lawsuit, CTAN has standing as a citizen interested in having officials faithfully follow the law. (Opp’n, p. 2: 14-22.) CTAN adds that it does not keep track of whether its members own property or pay property taxes within MUSD. (Opp’n p. 2: 25-26.) Lastly, CTAN asserts that it asserted the attorney-client privilege to protect conversations between CTAN and its counsel dealing with general subject matter. (Opp’n p. 3: 1-2.)

CTAN’s assertions may have had merit if they had been set forth in the responses to the Special Interrogatories or were discussed during Defendants’ attempts to meet and confer regarding the responses. Instead, CTAN’s responses to these Special Interrogatories only included objections based on attorney-client privilege, work product, and third-party privacy rights. In fact, in its responses, CTAN agreed to produce substantive responses pursuant to an appropriate protective order. Defendants provided a proposed protective order, but CTAN did not execute it. Therefore, the Court finds that CTAN’s assertions do not have merit and do not justify its continual refusal to provide supplemental responses. If CTAN truly does not have information in its possession, custody or control to answer these Special Interrogatories, the Court does not see why providing such a response would be burdensome. With respect to Special Interrogatory No. 12, if documents had been produced that were responsive to this request, the Court sees no reason why CTAN could not have exercised its option to produce writings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210, subdivision (a)(3). Instead, CTAN’s actual response was evasive and contained improper objections. Accordingly, the objections to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1-4 and 8-12 are overruled except as to attorney-client privilege and work product, and further responses are required, as is a privilege log.

Special Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 14

Defendants contend that further response are required as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 14, relating to the liability of individual Lopez defendants as specifically alleged in the original complaint. CTAN asserts that those allegations no longer exist in the FAC, and that CTAN has no other information apart from what it has provided. The Court finds that the responses to these Special Interrogatories are sufficient.

Sanctions

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subsection (c), the Court finds that CTAN did not act with substantial justification in failing to provide sufficient and proper responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1-4 and 8-12 and failing to meet and confer in good faith regarding those responses. Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,860.00.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is granted in part. Parker is ordered to provide supplemental, verified responses without objections other than attorney-client privilege and work product, to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1-5 and 8-12, along with a privilege log, within 20 days of this Order. CTAN is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,860.00 to Defendants within 20 days of this Order.

Defendants are ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED: March 8, 2018 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court