Case Number: SC108458    Hearing Date: April 25, 2014    Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

RICHID ALTMBARECKOUHAMMOU,
Plaintiff,
vs.

PHILIP JOHN HILDEBRAND, et al.,
Defendant(s).

Case No.: SC108458

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.3 AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS 1-6; AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Dept. 92
April 25, 2014
1:30 p.m. * add on

Defendant, Philip John Hildebrand’s Motions to Compel Plaintiff Richard Altmbareckouhammau’s further responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Request for Production is granted in part. Plaintiff’s further response is compelled as to Form Interrogatory 2.3, and Request for Production, Nos. 1-6; and denied as to remaining discovery. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses within 10 days. Sanctions of $2,000 are imposed against Plaintiff and attorney.

Plaintiff, Richid Altmbareckouhammou filed this action against Defendant, Philip John Hildebrand for assault, battery, IIED, and false arrest. Plaintiff alleges he was on the beach in Malibu photographing celebrity Matthew McConaughey surfing when Defendant, along with a group of other individuals, assaulted, beat, and dragged him into the surf, nearly drowning him.

Form Interrogatories
Defendant Philip John Hildebrand (“Defendant“) propounded set one of Form Interrogatories upon Plaintiff Richid Altmbareckouhammou (“Plaintiff”) on 6/21/13. On 12/20/13, Plaintiff responded. Plaintiff agreed to a 12/20/13 extension date to file this motion.
Defendant seeks to compel further responses to Interrogatories 2.3 & 17.1 contending that responses are insufficient and the response to 17.1 indicating that discovery has just commenced is not true.
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that this motion is unnecessary as complete responses were served and Defendant failed to properly meet and confer prior to filing this motion. Plaintiff contends that he produced complete verified responses on 12/20/13 and therefore, sanctions should be imposed against Defendant.
In reply, Defendant contends that Planitiff’s supplemental responses are incomplete and contain bad faith objections.
The parties have met and conferred and an IDC has taken place on 3/13/14.
Form Interrogatory No. 2.3 requests information about any driver’s license that Plaintiff possessed at the time of the incident. In response, Plaintiff has provided information about a license issued in 2010, when this incident occurred in 2008. Clearly, this is not responsive to the interrogatory. As such, Plaintiff’s further response should be compelled.
Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 requests facts relating to Requests for Admission. Defendant does not provide any specific arguments in reply as to why the supplemental responses are insufficient, other than argue about Plaintiff’s response to Requests for Production of Documents. Therefore, there is no basis to compel a further response.
Since this motion is granted in part, there is no basis to award sanctions to either party, therefore, sanctions are denied.

Special Interrogatories
Defendant contends that further responses should be compelled as to Special Interrogs Nos. 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35, 38, 41, 44, 47, 50, 56, 59, 62, 64, 68 and 71 on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to provide responsive answers and his objections are meritless; and further responses should be compelled as to Nos. 25, 28, 34, 37, 40, 43, 46, 49, 52, 55, 58, 61, 64, 67, and 70 on the grounds that his objections are boilerplate nuisance objections; and further responses as to Nos. 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60, 63, 66, 69, and 72 because identity of witnesses is essential for trial preparation.
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that he has filed supplemental responses and that sanctions should be imposed against Defendant for leaving this motion on calendar.
In reply, Defendant contends that the supplemental responses are incomplete and contain bad faith objections.

Defendant’s reply fails to address any of the supplemental responses or state why they are not sufficient.
As to Special Interrogatories No. 1-3, which deal with “Malibu Locals Only,” Plaintiff does assert numerous objections which do not apply, however, does indicate that these allegations have been removed from the complaint. Nos. 4- 72 assert numerous objections that do not apply, however, Plaintiff has provided sufficient responses after stating that he does not waive objections. There is no basis to compel further responses, therefore, the motion is denied as to compelling further responses to Special Interrogatories. Sanctions are denied.

Request for Production
Defendant seeks further responses to Request for Production Nos 1-6 and for sanctions.
In opposition, Plaintiff contends that supplemental verified responses were served and Plaintiff should be awarded sanctions for leaving this on calendar.
In reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiff never provided the requested documents referred to in responses and the responses contain bad faith objections.
As for requests Nos. 1-4 that refer to documents identified in responses to discovery, Plaintiff’s objections do not have merit. According to the reply, documents were not produced, therefore, further responses should be compelled. As to request no. 5, defendant requests “the camera” that Plaintiff contends was damaged; and in request no. 6, the video footage that Plaintiff contends portrays the incident. Plaintiff makes numerous objections that do not apply, including that the camera and film is not in his possession. Plaintiff needs to explain. Therefore, further responses should be compelled to Request for Production, Nos. 1-6. Sanctions in a reduced amount of $2,000 should be imposed against Plaintiff and counsel for fees incurred in bringing this motion.
Dated this 25th day of April, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court