Case Number: BC673359 Hearing Date: May 02, 2018 Dept: 32

rami nassif,

Plaintiff,

v.

larry a. murakami,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC 673359

Hearing Date: May 2, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendant’s motion to compel further responses

(1) to special interrogatories, Set one

(2) to requests for production of documents, set one

(3) to form interrogatories, set one

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of demolition work performed on certain real property located in Redondo Beach (“Property”). The Property was deemed a public nuisance by court order in , and Plaintiff Rami Nassif was ordered to pay all costs associated with the demolition and prosecution of the nuisance claim. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Aaron Jones, while working for the City of Redondo Beach as the Community Development Director, fabricated a report and presented it to the City Council for approval to award the demolition contract to Defendant L C M Financial Corp., dba Larry Murakami Contracting (“LMC”), owned by Defendant Larry Murakami (“Murakami”). Plaintiff alleges that LMC performed work outside the scope of the court order and invoiced amount beyond what was reasonable for the service provided. In the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) fraud; (2) civil conspiracy; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court sustained Defendant Muakami’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint on April 16, 2018.

On September 29, 2017, Defendants served Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) upon Plaintiff. (Morphis Decl. ¶3.) The response to the discovery responses were due on or before December 18, 2017 per extension. (Morphis Decl. ¶4, 5.)

DISCUSSION

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP 2030.300(a)(3).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the form interrogatories (“FIs”) and special interrogatories (“SIs”). (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.) If a party to whom [interrogatories or requests for admission] are directed fails to serve a timely response. . . [t]he party to whom the [interrogatories or requests] are directed waives. . . any objection to the [interrogatories or requests] including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. . . .” (CCP §§ 2030.290(a), 2033.280(a).) If a party to whom a demand for inspection is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the party to whom the demand for inspection is directed waives any objections to the demand. (CCP §2031.300(a).)

The moving party on a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents (RFPs) must submit “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).) If the moving party has shown good cause for the RFPs, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.)

A. Meet and Confer

A motion to compel further responses “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP § 2030.300(b).) Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff on February 23, 2018 detailing the deficiencies with Plaintiff’s response and requesting supplemental responses by March 2, 2018. (Morphis Decl. Exh. E.) Defendants filed the instant motions on March 14, 2018. The Court finds Defendant’s meet and confer efforts were sufficient to comply with CCP §2016.040.

B. Objections Waived

On September 29, 2017, Defendants served Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) upon Plaintiff. (Morphis Decl. ¶3.) The response to the discovery responses were due on or before December 18, 2017 per extension. (Morphis Decl. ¶4, 5.) On January 3, 2018, Plaintiff requested additional time to respond, which Defendant agreed to grant until January 16, 2018 on the condition that Plaintiff provide full and complete verified responses, without objections. (Morphis Decl. ¶6.) Defendant does not set forth evidence demonstrating that Plaintiff agreed to these terms. Plaintiff served responses containing only objections on January 16, 2018. (Morphis Decl. ¶7.)

Plaintiff served untimely responses to the interrogatories and requests for production and as such, all objections to the interrogatories are waived. (CCP §2030.290(a); CCP 2031.300.) Plaintiff does not contend that there was substantial compliance or that this delay resulted from mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect.

Plaintiff contends in his opposition that CCP §2030.010 does not allow for discovery from both Defendants Larry A. Murakami and LCM Financial Corp dba Larry Murakami Contracting in one discovery request, but does not cite to any authority for such a proposition.

As such, Defendants Motions to Compel Further responses are GRANTED for Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. Plaintiff is to serve verified responses without objection to Defendant’s counsel of record in 15 days or on a date stipulated by the parties.

C. Sanctions

Defendant’s counsel requests sanctions in the amount of $3,360 per CCP §2033.290(d) against Plaintiff. Given that no replies were filed and the motions were largely duplicative despite their volume, the sanctions are reduced accordingly. Defendant’s associate hourly rate is $320 and partner hourly rate is $370. In the present case, the Court finds that based on its own knowledge of fees charged for similar legal services in Los Angeles the requested hourly rates are reasonable. Defendants incurred filing fees of $60 per motion. Accordingly, the Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED.

The Court awards sanctions in the total amount of $3,615 (2 hours for an associate per motion, .5 hour for partner review per motion, 3 hours for an associate appearance at hearing, and a $60 filing fee per motion) in reasonable attorney fees and costs against the Plaintiff, payable no later than 30 days of notice of this order to the Defendant’s counsel, Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP.