Case Number: BC686476 Hearing Date: August 19, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

Having considered the moving and opposition papers, the Court rules as follows. No reply filed.

BACKGROUND

On December 11, 2017, Plaintiff Justin Ashouri brought this action against Defendants Marilyn Nickel, Lotus Property Services, Inc., and Does 1-50, seeking damages arising from the injuries he sustained when he was shocked by his toaster on January 27, 2017. Defendant Lotus Property Services, Inc. is Plaintiff’s landlord.

On June 7, 2018, Defendant Lotus Property Services, Inc. (“Moving Defendant”) served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Set One. On June 11, 2018, Moving Defendant served Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff. (Moving Papers, Exh. B and C).

Plaintiff provided a response to this discovery on July 12, 2018, primarily by asserting objections to each of the form and special interrogatories. (Moving Papers, Exh. D and E). Apparently Moving Defendant never moved to compel substantive responses from Plaintiff.

On April 10, 2019, Moving Defendant served Supplemental Interrogatories, Set 2, on Plaintiff, for further responses to form and special interrogatories. (Moving Papers, Exh. A). According to Moving Defendant, Plaintiff responded by timely objecting again to each of the underlying interrogatories.

On June 26, 2019, counsel for Moving Defendant sent a letter protesting Plaintiff’s objections to propounded discovery, but there is no mention in the letter of the Supplemental Interrogatories, Set Two, at issue in the instant motion. The letter demands full responses to each of the discovery request referenced in the letter by June 28, 2019 and threatens that motions to compel with requests for sanctions will be filed if the answers are not timely received.

On July 1, 2019, Moving Defendant filed a motion to compel further responses to its Supplemental Interrogatories, Set Two, and for sanctions in the amount of $760 for the fees expended in bringing the motion to compel. There is also no evidence that counsel for Moving Defendant sought to meet and confer by telephone or in person before filing this motion.

Plaintiff contend in his opposition that he served verified supplemental responses to all interrogatories at issue in the motion, but fails to provide a declaration attesting to the service of these response or a copy of the responses themselves.

PARTIES’ REQUEST

Defendant Lotus Property Services, Inc. (“Moving Defendant”) seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to serve substantive and verified answers to Interrogatories, Set 2, within ten (10) days from the date of its motion.

Moving Defendant also seeks an award of $760 in sanctions to cover the fees expended in bringing the motion to compel.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (b).) Where the party provides a timely response but the propounding party deems the response to be evasive or incomplete or raises unmeritorious objections, the propounding party must bring a motion to compel further responses without 45 days of the service of a verified response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (a) and (c).)

The motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (b). Section 2016.040 requires that the declaration “state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040).

Under the Court’s Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures, Central District, “Parties must participate in an [Informal Discovery Conference with the court] before a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery will be heard unless the moving party submits evidence, by way of declaration, that the opposing party has failed or refused to participate in an IDC.”

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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).)

DISCUSSION

The many flaws in Defendant’s motion to compel are fatal to its success.

First, because Plaintiff served timely objections, the motion is not a request for an order compelling a response under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, but rather a motion seeking further responses under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300. The motion was improperly scheduled on the Court’s afternoon calendar as a motion to compel a response, rather than the motion to compel further responses.

Second, there is no evidence that Defendant made any effort to schedule an informal discovery conference as it was required to do under the Court’s standing order.

Third, Defendant’s effort to “meet and confer” was woefully inadequate. Sending an ultimatum by letter to provide full answers within two days or face a motion to compel and for sanctions is not a “a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040).

Fourth, as a motion to compel further responses, the motion should have been filed with a separate statement setting forth the disputes and the parties’ positions on each dispute. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) Moving Defendant did not do so.

Finally, it appears that Plaintiff has provided full, verified answers to the outstanding discovery since the date when Moving Defendant filed its motion. To the extent this is true, the motion is moot.

For all these reasons, the Court DENIES the motion to compel.

Because Moving Defendant failed to meet and confer in good faith or to schedule an IDC, the Court also DENIES the request for sanctions.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice of this order.