Case Number: BC678812 Hearing Date: June 01, 2018 Dept: 32

DAVID LYONS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RYAN BALLINGER,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC678812

Hearing Date: June 1, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

BACKGROUND

This is an action arising out of a breach of agreement to repurchase shares in an entity. On October 13, 2017, Plaintiff David Lyons filed a complaint against Defendants Ryan Ballinger and Does 1 through 20 for (1) false promise and (2) breach of contract.

On November 30, 2017, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Ryan Ballinger (“Cross-Complainant”) filed a Cross-Complaint (“CC”) against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant David Lyons and Cross-Defendants LB4LB, LLC (“Cross-Defendant”) and Roes 1-10 for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) accounting.

On March 21, 2018, Cross-Defendant demurred to the Cross-Complaint which was sustained with leave to amend.

DISCUSSION

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP 2030.300(a)(3).)The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the form interrogatories (“FIs”) and special interrogatories (“SIs”). (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Defendant Ballinger moves to compel Plaintiff to serve verified amended responses to SIs nos. 2, 3, 5, 18-23 and responses to FI Nos. 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.7 and 17.1. Defendant contends the responses are defective in that they withheld or failed to provide information regarding Plaintiff’s background information (FIs), Plaintiff’s damages (SI 18-23) and identification of documents and witnesses regarding the alleged oral contract at issue (SI 2, 3, 5.).

As set forth in the motion Defendant served interrogatories on December 29, 2017 and received responses from Plaintiff on February 23, 2018 after a stipulated extension. Parties have sufficiently met and conferred pursuant to CCP § 2030.300(b). (Flom Delc. ¶5.)

The form interrogatories at issue request information regarding Plaintiff’s birth, driver’s license, address, education, damages, witnesses. Defendant has not persuaded the Court that the objections based on relevance asserted in response to any FI or SI have merit. If discovery is ongoing and Plaintiff has not yet ascertained damages, they shall set forth a response compliant with CCP 2030.220. As such, the motion to compel is GRANTED in its entirety. Plaintiff to provide supplemental verified responses within 15 days of this order.

The Court awards sanctions in the reduced amount of $2,035.00 ($395 per hour for five hours plus $60 filing fee) against the Plaintiff, payable no later than 30 days of notice of this order to the Defendant’s counsel. (CCP §2031.300.)