Lawzilla Additional Information: Plaintiff is represented by attorney Jeffrey Lipow

Case Number: BC694539 Hearing Date: September 09, 2019 Dept: 48

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: (1) & (2) Defendant TAG Enterprises, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) & (2) Plaintiff Masih Rassoli;

PROOF OF SERVICE:

Correct Address: (1) & (2) Yes.
16/21 (CCP § 1005(b)): (1) & (2) OK Served by hand delivery on August 2, 2019; advanced to this date per August 12, 2019 minute order.

GRANT motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 2 – 8;

GRANT motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents Nos. 1 – 8;

GRANT request for sanctions in the reduced total amount of $3,000.

ANALYSIS

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from Plaintiff Masih Rassoli and to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

Special Interrogatories

¿ Special Interrogatories Nos. 2, 4: GRANT.

Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s argument that, if Plaintiffs were going to purchase the Cudahy laundromat as one of a portfolio of laundromat investments, then the fact that Plaintiffs purchased a laundromat in San Fernando would not constitute mitigation of Plaintiffs’ damages, because it would not be a replacement property. The Court expressed this reasoning in its order denying the motions for summary adjudication.

However, whether or not the above is true in this case is a matter for Plaintiffs to prove at trial. Defendants are entitled to evidence which is relevant to Defendants’ theory on mitigation of damages via purchase of a “replacement” property in the event that Plaintiffs cannot prove their “portfolio” theory.

¿ Special Interrogatory No. 3: GRANT.

Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.

See above re: No. 2. Further, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the purchase price of a business is confidential business and financial information.

¿ Special Interrogatory No. 5: GRANT.

Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.

See above re: No. 2. Further, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that laundry business income is confidential business and financial information where Plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages related to the lost purchase of a laundromat business.

Plaintiff’s response that documents will be produced showing monthly gross income figures for the period of time before and after the laundromat commenced operating 24 hours a day does not address the full year requested. Moreover, the interrogatory seeks one figure—the total income—not monthly gross income figures.

¿ Special Interrogatories Nos. 6, 7 and 8: GRANT.

Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.

See above re: No. 2. Further, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that laundry business income and rent is confidential business and financial information where Plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages related to the lost purchase of a laundromat business.

Further responses are due without objection in 2 days.

Requests for Production of Documents

¿ Requests For Production of Documents Nos. 1 – 8: GRANT.

CCP § 2031.310(b)(1) requires that a motion to compel further responses to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”

In the separate statement, Defendant has demonstrated good cause for the production of documents requested.

Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. See discussion above re: motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories.

Plaintiff’s representation of partially responsive documents is insufficient.

Further responses are due without objection within 2 days.

Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff did not produce documents as he represented would be produced, such production is due within 2 days.

Sanctions

Defendants’ request for sanctions against Plaintiff Masih Rassoli and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, is GRANTED in the reduced total amount of $3,000. Sanctions are to be paid to Defendants’ counsel within 5 days.