Case Number: KC066122    Hearing Date: April 23, 2014    Dept: J

Re: Ronald D. Brown, et al. v. Jose Douglas Fallas, et al. (KC066122)

MOTION TO COMPEL SERVICE OF ORIGINAL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND TO IDENTIFY AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS

Moving Parties: Plaintiffs Ronald D. Brown and Kathleen Z. Brown

Respondent: Defendant Jose Douglas Fallas

POS: Moving OK; Opposing OK; Reply OK

Plaintiffs seek to quiet title on an allegedly falsely claimed easement by their neighbor, Defendant. The Complaint, filed on 6/27/13, asserts causes of action for:

1. Trespass (Personal Entries Onto Land)
2. Trespass (Encroachment)
3. Interference with Prospective Business Advantage
4. Slander of Title
5. Quiet Title
6. Injunctive Relief

Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendant to provide further responses as to Document Categories 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18-32, 34, 35, and 37.

Further, Plaintiffs also seek the original Discovery Responses (and not copies) in response to (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One, propounded 12/18/13; Requests for Admissions, Set One, propounded on 12/18/13; and Form Interrogatories, Set One, propounded on 12/18/13. In response, Plaintiffs received copies and not originals. Plaintiffs argue that the code states: “the party to whom” the discovery “is directed shall serve the original of the response to” that discovery upon “the propounding party” or the “party making the demand.” CCP 2030.260(a) (interrogatories); 2033.250(a) (RFAs) and 2031.260(a) (documents).

Plaintiffs also seek monetary sanctions of $10,560 for bringing the motion.

Orginals vs. Copies:

CCP 2030.260(a) states, “[w]ithin 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.” 2033.250(a) (RFAs) and 2031.260(a) (documents) are similarly worded.

In this case, the discovery responses consisted of copies and not originals. Defendant claims that original responses were served, but that the wrong box was checked on the proofs of service indicating that only “true copies” were being served. Regardless of whether this was merely a clerical error, either the original responses or corrected proofs of service are ordered to be provided within 10 days.

Identification and Production of Documents:

CCP § 2031.280(a) provides, “[a]ny documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall either be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business, or be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the demand.”

Here, Defendant claims that Plaintiffs did not specify how documents should be produced, so Defendants produced them as they were maintained in the usual course.

Form of Response:

CCP § 2031.230 states, “[a] representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also
specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”

Here, Defendants’s responses to category 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11-14, 17, 18-32, 34, 35, and 36 do not comply with § 2031.230. Therefore, further responses are ordered to be provided within 10 days.

Particular Items in Dispute:

Request 10 and Category 37:

Defendant objected that the categories
were “irrelevant…to the subject matter of this neighbor dispute.”

“As to motions to compel document requests,…moving parties must file evidence, such as a declaration, showing good cause, based on specific facts, that the requested matter is admissible evidence, or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of such evidence.” Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223-24.

In this case, a description of the action as a “neighbor dispute” would be a gross understatement. Plaintiffs allege that a water company easement runs across a portion of their property, and a portion of adjoining property owned by Defendant Fallas. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant prevented the water company from accessing the easement across his property, forcing them to use the easement across Plaintiffs’ property, causing Plaintiffs damages. Plaintiffs also allege: (1) Defendant trespassed by building a storage shed which partially encroaches on Plaintiffs’ property; (2) Defendants interfered with the sale of Plaintiffs’ house to third parties; and (3) Defendant trespassed by secretly connecting to Plaintiffs’ sewer pipe without consent.

Request 10 asks Defendant to admit “You have in internet listings of your house for rent identified your house as being connected to the municipal sewage system.” This Request is relevant to the sewer pipe controversy. Similarly, Category 37 seeks documents evidencing the real estate listing. Therefore, the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.

Categories 12 and 13:

Defendant objected on grounds that the category was overbroad as to time and scope. However, Category 12 relates to acts prior to 1995, so asking for communications with the water company from 1990 is not overly broad in scope. Further, Category 13 relates to communications between San Dimas from 1995, when Plaintiffs installed their sewer connection. Therefore, it is not overbroad.

Defendant also objects that the discovery items are burdensome. Objecting parties must file evidence detailing the amount of work involved, in order to support objections based upon burden and oppression. West Pico Furniture Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417; Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2012) ¶8:1097. Defendant has not detailed the amount of work that might be involved, so the objection is overruled.

Defendant is to provide further verified responses to the subject discovery within 10 days.

Sanctions:

The court finds that the monetary sanctions sought by counsel for Plaintiffs is excessive. Defendant and his counsel are jointly ordered to pay to counsel for Plaintiffs monetary sanctions in the total amount of $2,760.00 (9 x $300 + $60) within 10 days.