Filippini Wealth Management, Inc. v. Max Baril, et al.
Case No: 18CV04339
Hearing Date: Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Interrogatories

CASE: Filippini Wealth Management, Inc. v. Max Baril, et al., Case No. 18CV04339 (Judge Sterne)

HEARING DATE: June 3, 2019

MATTER:

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories; Request for Monetary Sanctions

ATTORNEYS:

Matthew M. Clarke for Plaintiff Filippini Wealth Management, Inc.

S. Joanna Dyriam for Defendant Max Baril

Barry Z. Brodsky for Defendant Meridian Group Real Estate Management, Inc.

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant’s motion for order compelling plaintiff to provide further responses to form interrogatories is granted. Plaintiff shall provide its further responses, without objections, on or before June 13, 2019. Defendant is awarded monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,413.40.

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Filippini Wealth Management, Inc. leased commercial property located at 1165 Coast Village Road, Suite L, Santa Barbara, California (the “Premises”), pursuant to a written lease agreement with defendant Max Baril. Defendant Meridian Group Real Estate Management, Inc. was the property manager of the property. Plaintiff operated its business at the Premises for approximately six years. In January 2018, water leaks occurred in the common area of the building, causing significant damage to the Premises and plaintiff’s personal property. Plaintiff gave written notice of the leaks to Meridian, but Meridian allegedly failed to take any action to investigate the cause of the leaks. Over the course of the next eight months, significant mold growth was found in the area of the water leaks. On May 14, 2018, Meridian entered the Premises and allegedly confronted and harassed one of plaintiff’s employees. On August 31, 2018, plaintiff vacated the Premises.

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, the operative complaint, alleges causes of action against Baril and Meridian for (1) breach of contract, (2) constructive eviction, (3) breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, (4) trespass, (5) intrusion into private affairs, and (6) declaratory relief. Baril has cross-complained against plaintiff for breach of the written lease agreement.

On February 5, 2019, defendant Baril served Form Interrogatories, Set One, on plaintiff. On March 12, 2019, plaintiff served electronically its responses to the form interrogatories. Baril contends that many of plaintiff’s responses are incomplete and contain improper objections and now moves to compel further responses. Baril also requests monetary sanctions in the sum of $1,413.40 against plaintiff and its attorneys, jointly and severally.

ANALYSIS:

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.” Code Civ. Proc. §2030.010, subd. (a). Each response to interrogatories “shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” Code Civ. Proc. §2030.220, subd. (a). If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, “it shall be answered to the extent possible.” Code Civ. Proc. §2030.220, subd. (b). On receipt of responses to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the propounding party deems that the responses are “evasive or incomplete,” or if the objections are “without merit or too general.” Code Civ. Proc. §2030.300, subd. (a)(1), (3).

Defendant Baril contends that plaintiff has failed to provide full and complete responses to Judicial Council Form Interrogatories Nos. 4.1, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 12.6, and 13.1. As to each of these form interrogatories (“FI”), the court rules:

FI No. 4.1: This FI asks plaintiff if it had any policy of insurance through which it might be insured for the damages alleged in the case, and if so, to state the kind of coverage, the name and address of the insurance company, the policy number, and the limits of coverage. (Dyriam Dec., ¶2, Ex. A.) Plaintiff objected to the interrogatory on the ground that evidence of insurance covering a particular loss is irrelevant and inadmissible under the collateral source rule. (Dyriam Dec., ¶3, Ex. B.) Plaintiff’s objection will be overruled. The collateral source rule precludes the admissibility of compensation from an independent third party, such as an insurance company, to mitigate damages. Norton v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1750, 1755. However, while certain evidence, including evidence of insurance, may, itself, be inadmissible, if that evidence may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, then such information is discoverable. Id., at 1761. Here, if plaintiff was insured against any loss in the case, it may have provided important information, such as photographs or written statements, to its insurance company regarding the nature and extent of its damages.

Plaintiff shall provide a full and complete response to the form interrogatory, without objections.

FI No. 7.1: This FI asks plaintiff whether it suffered any loss or damage to property due to the subject incident, and if so, to describe the property and the amount of damage it is claiming. (Dyriam Dec., ¶2, Ex. A.) Plaintiff objected to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is “vague and ambiguous, unintelligible, [and] compound.” (Dyriam Dec., ¶3, Ex. B.) Plaintiff’s objections will be overruled. Plaintiff claims to have sustained extensive damage to its personal property as a result of the water intrusion incident. (Dyriam Dec., ¶6, Ex. E, Nos. 13, 14, 25, 26, 29, and 30.) This FI simply seeks basic information regarding the nature and extent of plaintiff’s property damage.

Plaintiff shall provide a full and complete response to the form interrogatory, without objections.

FI No. 7.2: This FI asks plaintiff if a written estimate or evaluation has been made for any item of personal property that was damaged in the subject incident, and if so, to state the name, address, and telephone number of the person who prepared the written estimate or evaluation and the amount of damage stated. (Dyriam Dec., ¶2, Ex. A.) Plaintiff objected to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is “vague and ambiguous, unintelligible, [and] compound.” (Dyriam Dec., ¶3, Ex. B.) For the same reasons discussed above, plaintiff’s objections will be overruled.

Plaintiff shall provide a full and complete response to the form interrogatory, without objections.

FI No. 7.3: This FI asks plaintiff if any item of personal property that was damaged in the subject incident has been repaired, and if so, to state the date of the repair, a description of the repair, the repair cost, and the name, address, and telephone number of the person who made the repair. (Dyriam Dec., ¶2, Ex. A.) Plaintiff objected to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is “vague and ambiguous, unintelligible, [and] compound.” (Dyriam Dec., ¶3, Ex. B.) For the same reasons discussed above, plaintiff’s objections will be overruled.

Plaintiff shall provide a full and complete response to the form interrogatory, without objections.

FI No. 12.6: This FI asks plaintiff if a report was made by any person concerning the subject incident, and if so, to state the name, address, and telephone number of the person who made the report, the date and type of report made, and the name, address, and telephone number of the person for whom the report was made. (Dyriam Dec., ¶2, Ex. A.) Plaintiff stated in response that reports were made and would be produced, but it failed to set forth any information regarding the reports. (Dyriam Dec., ¶3, Ex. B.) Moreover, in response to defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, plaintiff stated that it would produce three reports by Insight Environmental, but only two reports were produced, both dated February 5, 2018. (Separate Statement, p. 7:5-9.) Thus, plaintiff’s failure to set forth specific information regarding the reports renders its response to the interrogatory incomplete and deficient.

Plaintiff shall provide a full and complete response to the form interrogatory, without objections.

FI No. 13.1: This FI asks plaintiff if it has conducted any surveillance of any individual involved in the subject incident, and if so, to state the name, address, and telephone number of the person who was observed, the date and place of the surveillance, and the name, address, and telephone number of the person who conducted the surveillance. (Dyriam Dec., ¶2, Ex. A.) Plaintiff objected to the interrogatory based on the attorney work product doctrine. (Dyriam Dec., ¶3, Ex. B.) While the court questions whether FI No. 13.1 was intended for this type of litigation, if plaintiff conducted surveillance of any defendant involved in the case (for example, while inspecting the Premises), such evidence is not protected by the attorney work product doctrine and is discoverable. See, Suezaki v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 166, 177-178.

Plaintiff shall provide a full and complete response to the form interrogatory, without objections.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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, subd. (d). Here, plaintiff did not act with substantial justification in opposing defendant’s motion and defendant is awarded monetary sanctions against plaintiff and its attorneys, jointly and severally, in the sum of $1,413.40 for fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion. (Dyriam Dec., ¶8.)

In its opposition, plaintiff argues that defendant’s motion to compel further responses was untimely because it was not filed within the statutory period for such a motion. Plaintiff is mistaken. Defendant had 45 days from the date of service of plaintiff’s responses within which to bring his motion to compel. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.300, subd. (c). Where a document is served electronically, as in this case, “[a]ny period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court days.” Code Civ. Proc. §1010.6, subd. (a)(4)(B) (emphasis added). Here, plaintiff served its responses electronically on March 12, 2019. (Dyriam Dec., ¶3, Ex. B.) Accordingly, defendant had until April 30, 2019 (45 days, plus two court days) to file his motion and his motion was timely.

Based on the foregoing, the court will grant defendant’s motion for order compelling plaintiff to provide further responses to form interrogatories. Plaintiff shall provide its further responses, without objections, on or before June 13, 2019. Defendant is awarded monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,413.40.