Case Name: Parisa Bozorghadad v. Ali Bozorghadad, et al.
Case No.: 2015-1-CV-287728

Motion to Compel Responses and Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Form Interrogatories, and Special Interrogatories by Defendant Ali Bozorghadad

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a quiet title action. Plaintiff Parisa Bozorghadad (“Plaintiff”) and defendant Ali Bozorghadad aka Ed Hadad (“Defendant”), wife and husband respectively, are the true owners of the beneficial interest in real property located at 683 San Miguel Avenue, Santa Clara, California (“San Miguel Property”). (See First Amended Complaint [“FAC”] at ¶¶ 2-4, 14.) The basis of this title is that the community property funds of Plaintiff and Defendant were used to purchase the San Miguel Property to pay off the entire debt on the property. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Defendant denies any such ownership interest in the San Miguel Property. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff and Defendant are presently in a dissolution matter in Santa Clara County (case no. 2013-1-FL-165940). (Id. at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff seeks to quiet title against Defendant and his brother, Abbas Bozorg Haddad aka Abbas Bozorghadad, as of the date they obtained any interest in the San Miguel Property, which was November 29, 2000. (Id. at ¶ 13.)

On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed the operative FAC setting forth causes of action for quiet title and constructive trust.

On July 12, 2016, Defendant served Plaintiff with Requests for Admissions (set one) (“RFA”), General Form Interrogatories (set one) (“FI”), and Special Interrogatories (set one) (“SI”). (Declaration of David Lucarelli at ¶¶ 2-3, Exhibits A, B.) Plaintiff responded to discovery with objections interposed with factual responses. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5, Exhibits C, D.)

On August 26, 2016, Defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s attorney addressing defects with SI Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 31, and 33 along with FI No. 17.1 and requested supplemental responses. (Declaration of David Lucarelli at ¶ 6, Exhibit E.) On October 3, 2016, Defense counsel also requested that Plaintiff serve a response to RFA No. 20 as no response had been provided. (Id. at ¶ 10, Exhibit I.) Despite both parties’ efforts to meet and confer on this discovery, Plaintiff did not serve any supplemental responses and thus Defendant seeks Court intervention to resolve this dispute.

Currently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel a response to RFA No. 20 and a further response to FI No. 17.1 and SI Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 24, and 27 because the answers are evasive and incomplete. Plaintiff filed written opposition. Defendant filed reply papers.

Motion to Compel RFA

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to provide a code compliant response to RFA No. 20. As stated above, Plaintiff did not serve any response to RFA No. 20. However, there is no statutory authority that allows a party to compel initial responses to requests for admission. The authority cited by Defendant applies only to a motion to compel further responses to RFA. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290.) Instead, Defendant may seek an order from the Court to have the RFA deemed admitted. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) To the extent that Defendant wants to have RFA No. 20 deemed admitted, he should file the appropriate noticed motion with the Court.

Accordingly, the motion to compel RFA No. 20 is DENIED.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to FI

Defendant moves to compel a further response to FI No. 17.1 because the answer is evasive and incomplete.

Legal Standard

A responding party must provide non-evasive answers to interrogatories that are “as complete and straightforward…to the extent possible,” and, if after a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information they still cannot respond fully to an interrogatory, the responding party must so state in its response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.) If the responding party provides incomplete or evasive answers, or objections without merit, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling a further response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.) If a timely motion to compel answers is filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (See Coy v. Super. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Separate Statement

As an initial matter, Plaintiff argues that the separate statement attached to the motion to compel further responses to FI No. 17.1 is defective because: (1) it fails to provide, for each category of demand, a statement of the facts and reasons supporting a further response as to each matter in dispute; and (2) it includes information with respect to the parties’ meet and confer efforts prior to the filing of the motion.

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be accompanied by a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) “A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).) The separate statement must include: (1) the text of the interrogatory; (2) the text of each response; and (3) a statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses for each matter in dispute. (Ibid.)

Here, Plaintiff correctly points out that the separate statement does not need to incorporate meet and confer communications from the parties. However, the separate statement does include the text of FI No. 17.1, the response given by Plaintiff, and the reasons for compelling a further response. Therefore, the Court finds that the separate statement is sufficient and will address the motion on its merits.

FI No. 17.1

FI No. 17.1 asks Plaintiff to: (a) identify all responses to the RFA that are not unqualified admissions; (b) state all facts on which an identified response is based; (c) identify all persons with knowledge of those facts and provide their contact information; and (d) identify all documents that support each response and provide the contact information of the person who has each document. Plaintiff provided a substantive response to FI No. 17.1 addressing subparts (a) through (d).

Here, Defendant correctly points out that Plaintiff’s response to RFA Nos. 8, 11, and 12 are not unqualified admissions. However, Plaintiff failed to include RFA Nos. 8, 11, and 12 in response to FI No. 17.1, subpart (a) and thus her response to this interrogatory is incomplete. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s response to FI No. 17.1 is not organized properly. FI No. 17.1 requires Plaintiff to separately list each RFA that is not an unqualified admission and then respond to subparts (a) through (d). Instead Plaintiff listed all of the RFA in subpart (a) without separately addressing each one in response to FI No. 17.1. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to a code compliant further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to FI No. 17.1 is GRANTED.

Motion to Compel Further SI

Defendant moves to compel a further response to SI Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 24, and 27 because the answers are incomplete and evasive.

SI No. 1

SI No. 1 asks Plaintiff to state all facts which support the contention that Plaintiff and Defendant are the true owners of the San Miguel Property. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Plaintiff fails to justify these objections in opposition and thus the objections are overruled. (See Coy v. Super. Ct., supra, 58 Cal.2d at pp. 220-221 [if a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on responding party to justify any objection]; see also Costco Wholesale v. Super. Ct. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733 [“The party claiming privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship.”]; Coito v. Super. Ct. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 502 [an objecting party may only be entitled to (work product) protection “if it can make a preliminary or foundational showing that answering the interrogatory would reveals the attorney’s tactics, impressions, or evaluation of the case, or would result in opposing counsel taking undue advantage of the attorney’s industry or efforts”].)

Without waiving objections, Plaintiff also provides a substantive factual response. In particular, Plaintiff claims that: (1) she is the true owner of the San Miguel Property; (2) that the mortgage was paid off in seven years; and (3) that she does not believe that defendant Abbas Bozorghadad ever paid money to or for the property or ever held himself out as the owner of the property. Although Defendant may not like the response, Plaintiff has answered the question and thus no further response is required.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 1 is DENIED.

SI No. 3

SI No. 3 asks Plaintiff to identify all documents related to her contention that Plaintiff and Defendant are the true owners of the San Miguel Property. Relying on Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, Plaintiff responds by stating that information responsive to this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the following documents: bank statements, purchase documents, property guarantee, rental/tenant documents, power of attorney documents, quit claim deed, and title documents.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 provides: “If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. The responding party shall then afford to the propounding party a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.)

Here, Plaintiff failed to specify the documents in sufficient detail to permit Defendant to locate, examine, audit or inspect, or make copies and summaries of the documents. Instead, Plaintiff provides only a vague response referring to unknown bank statements, power of attorney documents and other real property materials. Furthermore, “[i]f an interrogatory asks the responding party to identify a document, an adequate response must include a description of the document.” (Hernandez v. Super. Ct. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 293; see also Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 784 [“A broad statement that the information is available from a mass of documents is insufficient.”].) Therefore, a further response is required.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 3 is GRANTED.

SI No. 4

SI No. 4 asks Plaintiff to state all facts which support her contention that she has a legal interest in the San Miguel Property. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Plaintiff fails to justify these objections in opposition and thus the objections are overruled. Plaintiff also objects on the ground that this interrogatory is duplicative of SI No. 1. This is not a valid objection and thus Defendant is entitled to a code compliant further response. (See Deyo v. Kilbourne, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 783 [“Answers must be complete and responsive.”].)

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 4 is GRANTED.

SI No. 6

SI No. 6 asks Plaintiff to identify all documents related to her contention that she and Defendant have a legal interest in the San Miguel Property. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Plaintiff fails to justify these objections in opposition and thus the objections are overruled. Plaintiff also objects on the ground that this interrogatory is duplicative of SI No. 3. This is not a valid objection and Plaintiff has not identified any documents to respond to this interrogatory. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to a code compliant further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 6 is GRANTED.

SI No. 8

SI No. 8 asks Plaintiff to identify all individuals who have knowledge of the facts identified in her response to SI No. 4. In response, Plaintiff states that “the response to Interrogatory No. 4 was an objection.” This is not a code compliant response. “Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer which supplies only a portion of the information sought is wholly insufficient. Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) As Plaintiff fails to identify any individuals in response to SI No. 8, Defendant is entitled to a code compliant further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 8 is GRANTED.

SI No. 11

SI No. 11 asks Plaintiff to state all facts which support her contention that Defendant obtained a legal interest in the San Miguel Property as of November 29, 2000. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Plaintiff fails to justify these objections in opposition and thus the objections are overruled. Relying on Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, Plaintiff also responds by stating that information responsive to this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the following documents: bank statements, purchase documents, property guarantee, rental/tenant documents, power of attorney documents, quit claim deed, and title documents. For the reasons stated above with respect to SI No. 3, this response is inadequate and thus Defendant is entitled to a code compliant further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 11 is GRANTED.

SI No. 15

SI No. 15 asks Plaintiff to identify documents related to facts provided in SI No. 11. In response, Plaintiff identifies the following documents: bank statements, purchase documents, property guarantee, rental/tenant documents, power of attorney documents, quit claim deed, and title documents. However, as stated above, this response is vague and fails to adequately describe the documents. “If an interrogatory asks the responding party to identify a document, an adequate response must include a description of the document.” (Hernandez v. Super. Ct., supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 293; see also Deyo v. Kilbourne, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 784 [“A broad statement that the information is available from a mass of documents is insufficient.”].) Therefore, a further response is required.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 15 is GRANTED.

SI No. 16

SI No. 16 asks Plaintiff to state all facts which support her contention that community funds were used to pay off the entire debt on the San Miguel Property. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Plaintiff fails to justify these objections in opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Without waiving objections, Plaintiff also provides a substantive factual response. In particular, Plaintiff claims that community funds were used to pay off the debt because (1) community funds were used for the purchase; (2) Defendant gave money from a community source to Plaintiff to pay down the mortgage; and (3) any rental income that went toward paying down the mortgage was also community funds. Although Defendant may not like the response, Plaintiff has answered the question and thus no further response is required.
Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 16 is DENIED.

SI No. 18

SI No. 18 asks Plaintiff to identify all documents related to the facts provided in response to SI No. 16. Relying on Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, Plaintiff responds by stating that information responsive to this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the following documents: bank statements, purchase documents, property guarantee, rental/tenant documents, power of attorney documents, quit claim deed, and title documents. For the reasons stated above with respect to SI No. 3, this response is inadequate and thus Defendant is entitled to a code compliant further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 18 is GRANTED.

SI No. 19

SI No. 19 asks Plaintiff to state all facts which support her contention that none of Abba Bozorghadad’s money was used to purchase the San Miguel Property. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Plaintiff fails to justify these objections in opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Without waiving objections, Plaintiff also provides the following substantive response: “Plaintiff has asked Defendant Ali Bozorghadad on at least five or six separate occasions in the dissolution action that if Ali Bozorghadad has any evidence that Abbas Bozorghadad contributed any money or provided any consideration toward the purchase of the property to then supply that information and Defendant Ali Bozorghadad has repeatedly refused to provide any such information, leading to the conclusion that none exists.” (See Separate Statement at p. 19.) Although Defendant may not like the response, Plaintiff has answered the question and thus no further response is required.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 19 is DENIED.

SI No. 21

SI No. 21 asks Plaintiff to identify all documents related to the facts provided in response to SI No. 19. Relying on Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, Plaintiff responds by stating that information responsive to this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the following documents: bank statements, purchase documents, property guarantee, rental/tenant documents, power of attorney documents, quit claim deed, and title documents. For the reasons stated above with respect to SI No. 3, this response is inadequate and thus Defendant is entitled to a code compliant further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 21 is GRANTED.
SI Nos. 24 and 27

SI Nos. 24 and 27 ask Plaintiff to identify all documents related to the facts provided in response to SI Nos. 22 and 25. In response, Plaintiff provides the following list of documents: (1) the files and records of the parties’ dissolution action; (2) Defendant’s answer filed in this action; (3) the files and records of this action; (4) the documents between the parties through their counsel about the lack of taxes having been paid; and (5) the power of attorney showing that Abbas Bozorghadad has never had any direct control over the property.

Defendant argues that such a response is improper as it provides only a generic list of documents. Defendant contends that the phrase “IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS,” is specifically defined to mean “fully describe the document including, but not limited to, state its title, state the date it was created, identify its creator, and identify all persons and entities having custody and control of it.” Plaintiff fails to dispute this argument in opposition to the motion. Therefore, Plaintiff shall provide Defendant with code compliant further responses.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI Nos. 24 and 27 is GRANTED.

Request for Monetary Sanctions

Defendant makes a code compliant request for monetary sanctions. The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses 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).)

Defense counsel requests sanctions in the amount of $6,000 based on seven hours reviewing Plaintiff’s responses, drafting the motion, and additional meet and confer efforts. As an initial matter, the Court does not award sanctions for meeting and conferring as that is a statutory requirement for filing a motion to compel further responses. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) Furthermore, the award for monetary sanctions is reduced as Defendant only partially prevailed on the motion. Therefore, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. The Court will award $1,500 in sanctions to Defendant.

Conclusion

Defendant’s motion to compel RFA No. 20 is DENIED.

Defendant’s motion to compel a further response to FI No. 17.1 is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve Defendant with a verified code compliant further response, without objections, within 20 calendar days of this Order.
Defendant’s motion to compel a further response to SI Nos. 1, 16, and 19 is DENIED.

Defendant’s motion to compel a further response to SI Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 15, 18, 21, 24, and 27 is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve Defendant with verified code compliant further responses, without objections, within 20 calendar days of this Order.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff’s attorney shall pay $1,500 to Defense counsel within 20 calendar days of this Order.