Case Number: KC065748    Hearing Date: October 31, 2014    Dept: 93

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 93

CRAIG MARSHALL,

Plaintiff(s),
v.

STEADFAST CAMERON PARK,

Defendant(s).
Case No.: KC065748

Hearing Date: October 31, 2014

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:
DEFENDANT STEADFAST CAMERON PARK, L.P.’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO; AND
REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Defendant Steadfast Investment Properties’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, is DEEMED MOOT. Defendant, in the Reply, represents that following fruitful discussions during the September 19, 2014 Informal Discovery Conference, Plaintiff has now provided satisfactory discovery responses with respect the Special Interrogatories which are the subject of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses.
Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Monetary sanctions the amount of $585 are imposed against Plaintiff and his counsel, payable within 10 days. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Background

Plaintiff Craig Marshall alleges he was injured he slipped and fell on a stairway on a property owned by Defendant Steadfast Investment Properties. On September 19, 2014, Informal Discovery Conference was held in the chambers.

On April 18, 2014, Defendant served Plaintiff with Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two containing 127 special interrogatories. (See Ex. A to Motion.) On May 23, 2014, Plaintiff served his verified responses, which contained some information, but mostly objections. (Id., Ex. B.) The instant motion to compel further was filed on July 9, 2014. After meet and confer efforts, on September 15, 2014, Plaintiff served Defendant with Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses, which Plaintiff contends “substantially complied” with the discovery. (Opposition, Yamada Decl.¶ 12, Exhibit 1.) The Supplemental Responses provided additional information, but Defendant continued to take the position that they were not fully responsive.

On September 19, 2014, an Informal Discovery Conference was held in this Court wherein there appeared to be agreement with respect to additional responses, and for Plaintiff to serve Second Supplemental Responses by October 6, 2014. (Opposition, Yamada Decl. ¶ 13.)

On October 2, 2014, Plaintiff served Defendant with his Second Supplemental Responses. (Opposition, Exhibit 2.) In its Reply, Defendant represents that the additional responses are satisfactory.

Discussion

Defendant represents that following the September 19, 2014 Informal Discovery Conference, Plaintiff has now provided satisfactory discovery responses with respect to the Special Interrogatories which are the subject of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses. Thus, the remaining dispute pertains solely to Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions.
The court “shall” impose a monetary sanction against the losing party on the motion to compel unless it finds that party acted “with substantial justification” or other circumstances render sanctions “unjust.” (CCP § 2030.290(c).)

A review of Plaintiff’s initial responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatory, Set Two, demonstrates that Plaintiff’s responses were inadequate and/or evasive. While Plaintiff is correct that 127 interrogatories is a significant number of interrogatories, Plaintiff provided little information in response, instead mostly asserting objections to the requests. Thus, it appears that had Plaintiff not voluntarily supplemented his responses, the motion would have been granted.

Plaintiff, in opposition, contends that monetary sanctions are not warranted because he acted with substantial justification and other circumstances render sanctions unjust. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that he acted with substantial justification because he put forth a good faith effort into responding to the “oppressive, burdensome, cumulative, and duplicative” interrogatories propounded by Defendant.

Plaintiff, however, fails to demonstrate that the interrogatories were oppressive, burdensome, cumulative, and/or duplicative, e.g., that that the burden of answering is so unjust that it amounts to oppression and/or that the amount of work required to answer the questions is so great, and the utility of the information sought so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the answers. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Sup.Ct. (Pacific Finance Loans) (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 419; Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Rolfe) (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.)

Plaintiff also contends that the circumstances would also make the imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff unjust because Defendant’s meet and confer efforts were inadequate. However, the Declaration of Charles F. Nikolenko accompanying the moving papers demonstrate that Defendant’s meet and confer efforts were adequate. (See Motion, Nikolenko Decl. ¶¶ 5-10, Exhibits C-H.)

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he acted with substantial justification or other circumstances render sanctions unjust. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.
However, the Court finds that the number of hours requested as sanctions by Defendant is excessive, especially the time expected to appear at the hearing. Thus, monetary sanctions of $585 (three hours at $175 per hour plus $60 filing fee) are imposed against Plaintiff and his counsel, payable within 10 days. (See Nikolenko Decl. ¶12.)

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

DATED: October 31, 2014
_________________________
Hon. Gail Ruderman Feuer
Judge of the Superior Court