Case Number: EC066501 Hearing Date: January 12, 2018 Dept: NCB

6. EC066501

VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC v MEYGHAN HILL et al

Motion for:

1. Order compelling the Plaintiff, Video Symphony, LLC, to serve further responses to the Defendant’s form and special interrogatories; order imposing monetary sanctions

2. Order compelling the Cross-Defendant, Michael Flanagan, to serve further responses to the Defendant’s form and special interrogatories; order imposing monetary sanctions

This case arises from the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendant, Meyghan Hill, failed to repay a loan. The Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint against the Plaintiff and Michael Flanagan, to claim that the efforts to recover the debt involved unfair business practices and violated the Federal and California Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. In addition, the Defendant claimed in her Cross-Complaint that the loan was obtained through false representations and that the loan agreement violated the statutory requirements for retail installment contracts.

Trial is set for March 26, 2018.

At this hearing, the Defendant seeks discovery orders regarding the form interrogatories and special interrogatories that she served on the Plaintiff, Video Symphony, LLC, and on the Cross-Defendant, Michael Flanagan. The Defendant seeks relief under CCP section 2030.300, which authorizes the Court to order a party to serve a further response to an interrogatory in the following circumstances:

1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. 2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. 3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

1. Interrogatories Directed at Video Symphony, LLC

Video Symphony LLC, served objections to form interrogatory 15.1 and special interrogatories 22, 23, 24, and 30. These include objections that the interrogatories call for legal conclusion, that they are irrelevant or unduly burdensome, that that they seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Under California law, the objecting party has the burden of justifying its objections when the propounding party requests that the Court order further responses. Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221. This requires the Plaintiff to proceed through each objection and demonstrate that each objection has merit. Under CCP section 2023.010, it is a misuse of discovery to make unmerited objections. Video Symphony LLC does not justify each of the objections. Accordingly, there are grounds to order the Plaintiff to serve further responses without objections to the Defendant’s form interrogatory 15.1 and special interrogatories 22, 23, 24, and 30.

Special interrogatories 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 sought information, including name, addresses, and telephone numbers, for the persons who served or attempted to serve the Complaint and persons who filed the Complaint or other documents with the Court. Special interrogatory 28 sought information, including name, addresses, and telephone numbers, for the persons who communicated with the Plaintiff to collect the debt. The responses of Video Symphony, LLC, to these interrogatories contained only the names. These responses are incomplete because they do not include the addresses and telephone numbers for the persons.

Accordingly, there are grounds to order the Plaintiff to serve further responses to special interrogatories 16, 18, 19, 20, and 21.

2. Interrogatories Directed at Michael Flanagan

Michael Flanagan served objections to form interrogatory 2.6 and 15.1 and special interrogatories 1 to 12. These include objections that the interrogatories call for legal conclusion, that they are limited by a “chinese wall”, that they are irrelevant or unduly burdensome, and that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations,

Under California law, the objecting party has the burden of justifying its objections when the propounding party requests that the Court order further responses. Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221. This requires the Cross-Defendant, Michael Flanagan,to proceed through each objection and demonstrate that each objection has merit. Under CCP section 2023.010, it is a misuse of discovery to make unmerited objections. Michael Flanagan not justify each of the objections. Accordingly, there are grounds to order Michael Flanagan to serve further responses without objections to the Defendant’s form interrogatories 2.6 and 15.1 and to special interrogatories 1 to 12.

Finally, the Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $14,000. Under CCP section 2030.300, there are grounds to impose reasonable monetary sanctions on the Plaintiff, Video Symphony, LLC, and on the Cross-Defendant, Michael Flanagan, because their responses were incomplete and contained unmerited objections.

The Defendant’s attorney, Tracy Cowan, provides facts to show that a total of 30.3 hours were billed at $730 per hour and that 4.9 hours were billed at $600 per hour on these two motions. Both the amount of hours expended and the hourly rate are excessive for this discovery motion. A more reasonable amount of time to spend on each motion is 6 hours. Further, a reasonable billable rate for discovery motions is $300 per hour. This would result in an order imposing $1,800 (6 hours at $300 per hour) on Plaintiff, Video Symphony LLC, and $1,800 (6 hours at $300 per hour) on Cross-Defendant, Michael Flanagan.

Sanctions are to be paid within 30 days.