Case Number: 17STLC01405 Hearing Date: June 04, 2018 Dept: 94

Plaintiff Meena Shahani’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 8.1-8.5, 8.8, 15.1, and 50 is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories Nos. 8.1-8.5, 8.8, 15.1, and 50.1, within twenty (20) days of this order. Palintiff’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,635, payable by Defendants within thirty (30) days of this order.

On February 3, 2017, Plaintiff Meena Shahani (“Plaintiff”) filed this breach-of-contract action against Defendants Saleh M. Akhoon (“Akhoon”) and Fashion of Planet, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”).

Pursuant to this Court’s February 28, 2018 Minute Order granting Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery responses, Akhoon served his responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories on April 6, 2018. (Motion, Butler Decl. ¶ 4.)

On May 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”), seeking an order to compel Akhoon to further respond to her Form Interrogatories Nos. 8.2-8.8, 9.2, 15.1, and 50.1. On March 18, 2018, Akhoon filed an opposition. On May 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Meet and Confer

Before bringing a motion to compel further responses to any discovery request, the moving party is required to make efforts to meet and confer in good faith and must submit a declaration attesting to those efforts. (Id. § 2030.300(b).)

Plaintiff submits an electronic mail, dated April 11, 2018, he sent to Akhoon to show that she attempted to meet and confer with Akhoon about his responses to her Form Interrogatories Nos. 8.1-8.5, 8.8, 15.1, and 50.1. (See Motion, Exh. 2.)

In opposition, Akhoon argues that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith because the meet and confer was not made by a telephone call, a letter, or in person. (Oppo. pp. 3-5.) The Court notes that CCP § 2030.300(b) states: “A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” CCP § 2016.040 states: “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” Neither CCP § 2030.300(b) nor § 2016.040 requires a meet and confer be made by a telephone call, a letter, or in person. Akhoon also cites to CCP § 2023.010 for the proposition that a meet and confer made my electronic mail is subject to monetary sanctions because such method of meet and confer is somehow per se bad faith; Akhoon also requests that the Court impose sanctions on Plaintiff for violation of Section 2023.010. (Oppo. pp. 3-5.) As far as the Court is aware, no courts have ever made such an outlandish interpretation of CCP § 2023.010. Akhoon failed to respond to Plaintiff’s April 11, 2018 electronic mail and now claims that Plaintiff did not make a good faith effort to meet and confer because the meet-and-confer effort was not made in a letter, telephone call, or in person. The Court is not persuaded. Further, the Court also exercises its discretion not to impose sanctions on Plaintiff as requested by Akhoon.

The Court notes, however, that the meet-and-confer electronic mail only discusses Akhoon’s responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 8.1-8.5, 8.8, 15.1, and 50.1, but Plaintiff brings the instant Motion to further compel Akhoon’s responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 8.6, 8.7, and 8.8, which were not in the meet-and-confer electronic mail. The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to discuss Akhoon’s responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 8.6, 8.7, and 8.8 to be bad faith and declines to consider those responses in this Motion. As for the other responses to Form Interrogatories, the Court finds Plaintiff’s meet-and-confer effort as to those to be made in good faith.

Legal Standard

“On receipt of a response to [interrogatories], the [propounding party] may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that: ¶ An answer to a particular [request or interrogatory] is evasive or incomplete.” (CCP § 2030.300(a)(1).) The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories or requests. (See Coy v. Sup. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255; Kirkland v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

“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.” (CCP § 2030.300(d).)

Discussion

Plaintiff argues that Akhoon’s responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 8.1-8.5, 8.8, 15.1, and 50.1 are incomplete. (See Separate Statement pp. 4-7.) In opposition, Akhoon argues that his responses to the Form Interrogatories were complete and accurate. (Oppo. p. 6.)

Having reviewed Akhoon’s responses to Form Interrogatories, the Court finds as follows:

Response to Form Interrogatories No. 8.2: Akhoon fails to answer subsections (a) and (c).

Response to Form Interrogatories No. 8.3: Akhoon fails to provide the date as requested.

Response to Form Interrogatories No. 8.4: Akhoon fails to state the monthly income.

Response to Form Interrogatories No. 8.5: Akhoon fails to state the date he returned to work. Objection based on relevance (and any other objections) has been waived pursuant to the Court’s February 28, 2018 Minute Order.

Response to Form Interrogatories No. 8.8: Akhoon fails to respond to any part of the request. Objection based on relevance (and any other objections) has been waived pursuant to the Court’s February 28, 2018 Minute Order.

Response to Form Interrogatories No. 15.1: In opposition, Akhoon argues that he has no affirmative defenses in his Answer, so he needs not respond to the request. (Oppo. p. 6.) The Court disagrees. If Akhoon’s position is that he has no affirmative defenses in his Answer, so he has nothing to say, then he should have put that statement in his response to Form Interrogatories No. 15.1.

Response to Form Interrogatories No. 50.1: Akhoon fails to provide a complete answer.

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRANTED. Akhoon is ordered to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories Nos. 8.1-8.5, 8.8, 15.1, and 50.1 wihtin twenty (20) days of this order.

Plaintiff requests $2,345 in monetary sanctions against Akhoon. (Notice of Motion pp. 1-2.) Plaintiff requests an hourly rate of $350 for one (1) hour to draft this Motion, two (2) hours to prepare the separate statement, half (.5) an hour to prepare the reply, three (3) hours and appear for the hearing of this Motion, along with $60 in filing fee and $10 in parking costs. (Motion, Butler Decl. ¶ 7.) In opposition, Akhoon argues that monetary sanctions are unjust because Plaintiff did not meet and confer with him via telephone, in person, and a letter. (Oppo. pp. 7-8.) As discussed above, Akhoon’s argument is unpersuasive as Akhoon did not respond Plaintiff’s meet-and-confer effort via electronic mail. Accordingly, the Court finds that imposing monetary sanctions on Akhoon to be appropriate and mandatory under CCP § 2030.300(d).

The Court finds that that one (1) hour to draft this Motion, one (1) hour to draft the Separate Statement, one (1) hour to prepare the reply, and one (1.5) hours to appear at the hearing for the Motion, at a reasonable rate of $350 per hour, along with $60 in filing fee, to be sufficient to compensate Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court awards Plaintiff $1,635 in monetary sanctions against Akhoon. Sanctions are to be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of serving notice of this Order by Plaintiff.

Moving party to give notice.