Case Number: LAV11E07690 Hearing Date: January 21, 2020 Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO POST-JUDGMENT INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 708.020, 708.030, 2030.300, 2031.310, 2023.010, 2023.030)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Judgment Creditor’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED. Judgment Debtor is to serve further responses, without objection, to Post-Judgment Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 11, 17, 18, and Post-Judgment Requests for Production, Set One, Nos. 2 and 15, within 20 days of the date of this order.

Judgment Creditor’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. The Court imposes $810 in monetary sanctions against Judgment Debtor. ($250/hour * 3 hours + 1 filing fee of $60) Judgment Debtor is to pay these sanctions within 30 days of the date of this order.

I. Background

On January 27, 2012, a judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff Merrill Corporation, Inc.

(“Judgment Creditor”) and against Defendant John R. Contos (“Judgment Debtor”). On January

3, 2019, Judgment Creditor served Post-Judgment Interrogatories, Set One, and Post-Judgment Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on Judgment Debtor. Judgment Debtor failed to timely respond, and Judgment Creditor filed motions to compel post-judgment interrogatories and post-judgment requests for production and for monetary sanctions on March 20, 2019. The Court granted the unopposed motions on July 10, 2019. In the order granting Judgment Creditor’s motions to compel, the Court ordered Judgment Debtor to provide verified responses, without objections, to Post-Judgment Interrogatories, Set One, and Post-Judgment Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.

Now, Judgment Creditor moves to compel Judgment Debtor to produce further responses to Post-Judgment Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, based on incomplete responses and meritless objections. While Judgment Creditor includes “motion to compel compliance” with a court order, the Court views the motion to compel further responses to sufficiently address the motion to compel compliance. The motion is unopposed.

II. Analysis & Order

Initially, the Court finds Judgment Creditor satisfies the meet and confer requirement (Revitz Decl. ¶ 21, Exh. 18) and satisfies the separate statement requirement. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b)(2); CRC, Rule 3.1345.) Also, the Court finds the motion is timely because it was filed within 45 days of October 4, 2019, the date the subject responses were served. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c).)

CCP §§ 708.020-708.030 allow a judgment creditor to propound interrogatories and requests for

production of documents “to aid in enforcement of the money judgment,” and the discovery

requests “may be enforced to the extent practicable” in the same manner as interrogatories and

requests for production of documents in a civil action.

On receipt of a response to interrogatories or requests for production, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete, (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a).)

Here, the Court ordered on July 10, 2019 Judgment Debtor to serve verified responses, without objections, to Post-Judgment Interrogatories, Set One (“ROG”), and Post-Judgment Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RFP”). On August 8, 2019, Judgment Creditor received responses to ROG and RFP from Judgment Debtor. (Revitz Decl. ¶ 10, Exhs. 6, 7.) On October 4, 2019, Judgment Debtor served further responses to ROG and RFP. (Id. at ¶ 20, Exhs. 16, 17.)

Post-Judgment Interrogatories, Set One, No. 11

The Court finds Judgment Debtor’s further response fails to provide a complete, code-compliant response. “Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a).) Here, ROG 11 asks Judgment Debtor to provide telephone numbers and locations of his last payors, but Judgment Debtor’s response does not provide that information.

Post-Judgment Interrogatories, Set One, No. 17

This interrogatory requests that Judgment Debtor identify all stocks, bonds, and other securities in which he has an interest by stating the name and address of the issuer of said security and its certificate number. “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(c).) Here, Judgment Debtor essentially respond that he lacks personal knowledge to respond fully to the interrogatory. However, while he responds that he will require the services of an advisor to obtain the information, he does not sufficiently state that he is making a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information. Thus, a further responses to ROG 17 is required because the further response is not code-compliant.

Post-Judgment Interrogatories, Set One, No. 18

The Court finds Judgment Debtor’s further response fails to obey the Court’s July 10, 2019 Order. The Court ordered Judgment Debtor to provide responses, without objection. In further response to ROG 18, Judgment Debtor asserts objections.

Post-Judgment Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, No. 2

This request is for all checks drawn from any checking account in Judgment Debtor’s name. Judgment Creditor has good cause to request these documents because they might aid in the enforcement of a money judgment. (Revitz Decl. ¶ 3; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 708.020-708.030.) Thus, the good cause requirement is met. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).)

A statement of inability to comply with a request for production “shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) Here, Judgment Debtor states he is unable to comply with the request because the documents are not in his possession. Nevertheless, he still may have custody or control over them. In all, his response is incomplete.

Post-Judgment Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, No. 15

This request is for all retainer agreements with clients from January 1, 2017 to the date of the response. Judgment Creditor has good cause to request these documents because they might aid in the enforcement of a money judgment. (Revitz Decl. ¶ 3; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 708.020-708.030.) Thus, the good cause requirement is met. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).)

The July 10, 2019 Order instructed Judgment Debtor to respond without objections. Here, Judgment Debtor asserts attorney-client privilege and third-party privacy objection. Further, RFP 15 states Judgment Debtor may redact any attorney-client privileged statements within the documents.

//

Based on the foregoing, the unopposed motion to compel further responses to ROG and RFP is GRANTED. Judgment Debtor is to serve verified responses, without objection, to Post-Judgment Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 11, 17, 18, and Post-Judgment Requests for Production, Set One, Nos. 2 and 15, within 20 days of the date of this order.

Because the motion is granted, the Court imposes monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h), 2023.010, 2023.030.) The Court does not find the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

The Court finds that an hourly rate of $250 is reasonable for this simple discovery motion. The Court finds that 2 hours preparing the motion and 1 hour to attend the hearing is reasonable. Therefore, the Court awards $810 in monetary sanctions. ($250/hour * 3 hours + 1 filing fee of $60).

Moving party is ordered to give notice.