Case Number: KC066584    Hearing Date: September 30, 2014    Dept: J

Re: Route 66 CPAs, LLC v. Glendora Courtyard, LLC (KC066584)

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER WRITTEN DISCOVERY; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Moving Party: Defendant Glendora Courtyard, LLC

Respondent: Plaintiff Route 66 CPAs, LLC

POS: Moving OK; Opposing OK

[PROCEDURAL NOTE: Counsel for Defendants has improperly combined at least two separate motions (regarding form interrogatories and special interrogatories) into one. Counsel for Defendants is ordered to pay an additional motion filing fee prior to hearing.]

Plaintiff and Defendant are owners of real property development called Glendora Courtyard. Defendant owns Parcels 1 and 2. Plaintiff owns Parcel 3. Under CC&Rs, each owner is responsible for its proportionate share of the common area expenses. Plaintiff is seeking removal of the maintenance director at Glendora Courtyard, an accounting, reimbursement of all overpaid maintenance expense, and an injunction against recording assessment liens. Plaintiff commenced this action on 12/27/13. The First Amended Complaint, filed on 1/27/14, asserts causes of action for:

1. Declaratory Relief
2. Preliminary and Permanent Injunction
3. Removal of Maintenance Director
4. Accounting and Restitution

On 12/31/13, the instant matter was deemed related to Case No. KC063544. Case No. KC063544 was designed the lead case. On 5/8/14, the instant matter was deemed related to Case No. BC543482.

The Trial Setting Conference is set for 12/16/14.

Defendant Glendora Courtyard, LLC (“Glendora”) moves to compel further written discovery from Plaintiff Route 66 CPAs, LLC (“Route 66”) and for $5,250.00 in monetary sanctions against Route 66 and its counsel.

CCP 2030.300 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP 2030.300(b).) Each answer in the response must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (CCP § 2030.220(a),(b).)

The notice of motion must state in the first paragraph exactly what relief is sought and why. (CCP § 1010; CRC 3.1110(a); see People v. American Sur. Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 719, 726.)

Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. (CRC 3.1345(a).)

Glendora’s notice of motion does not identify what specific discovery requests are the subject of the motion. Further, Glendora’s separate statement, required by California Rule of Court 3.1345(a) to “accompany” the motion, was not filed and served until August 28, 2014. This was nearly one month after Glendora filed and served the moving papers on July 31, 2014. Thus, until then counsel for Route 66 was unable to determine the specific relief sought in the motion.

TIMELINESS:

A notice of motion to compel must be served, if at all, within 45 days after verified responses, or any verified supplemental responses, were served, unless the parties agree in writing to extend the time. (CCP § 2030.300(c).) Delaying the motion beyond the 45–day time limit waives the right to compel a further response to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.300(c); see Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Halpern) (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685 — court lacks jurisdiction to order further answers after 45 days.) However, the parties may extend the 45–day limit on making a motion to compel by written agreement specifying a later date. (CCP § 2030.300(c).)

While the format of the motion and the declaration of counsel for Glendora are vague and confusing, it appears that Glendora is seeking to compel Route 66’s further responses to form interrogatory 17.1 concerning request for admissions (“RFA”) 1-5, 13, 17 and 23; and to special interrogatories 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24,26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 64, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, and 91.

However, Route 66 served its responses to special interrogatories by mail on April 10, 2014, and thus, Glendora had 50 days from April 10, 2014 to bring this motion. While Glendora was granted a written extension of time to file a motion to compel to July 30, 2014 (Opposition, Soll Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. C), Glendora served and filed the motion one day late, on July 31, 2013.

While Route 66 supplemented its responses to some of the special interrogatories on June 11, 2014 (See Motion, Exh. M), it appears that it did not supplement its responses to any of the special interrogatories at issue in this motion. Thus, the motion to compel further responses to the special interrogatories is untimely and it is denied.

MEET AND CONFER:

The motion to compel must also be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (CCP §§ 2016.040, 2030.300 (b).)

It appears that Glendora’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatory 17.1, as it relates to RFA 1-5 and 23, was filed without any meet and confer. Specifically, there is no evidence demonstrating that Glendora attempted to meet and confer with Route 66 AFTER Route 66 served its supplemental responses on July 22, 2014. (See Motion, Exh. P.) Further, as discussed above, the motion was not accompanied by the requisite separate statement. The motion is denied.

SANCTIONS:

Monetary sanctions are authorized against the “party, person or attorney” who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, 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).)

In light of the fact that the motion to compel further responses to the form interrogatories (only) would have been timely but for the failures to meet and confer and to serve and file a timely separate statement, the court declines to award sanctions to Route 66.

As the court warned at the hearing of the previous discovery motions in this action, ALL future discovery disputes shall be referred to a discovery referee. The court suggests that counsel meet and confer for the purpose of attempting to agree on the referee.