Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records we believe the plaintiffs being sanctioned in this order are represented by GLENN ROSEN of the THE ROSEN LAW FIRM

Case Number: BC631340 Hearing Date: March 19, 2018 Dept: 32

steven and danielle avdul,

Plaintiffs,

v.

doug raub design and development, inc., et al.,

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.

Case No.: BC631340

Hearing Date: March 19, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

(1) Motion to Compel Plaintiffs steven and danielle avdul to provide further responses to cross-defendant modern roofing, inc.’s form interrogatory, set no. one

(2) Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Steven and Danielle Avdul to provide documents in response to cross-defendant modern roofing, inc.’s request for production of documents and things, set no. one.

Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Modern Roofing, Inc. (“Modern”) moves to compel Plaintiffs Steven and Danielle Avdul (“Plaintiffs”) to provide further responses to form interrogatories (“FI”) and requests for production of documents (“RFP”).

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.) 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.)

“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (CCP § 2031.320(a).)

FI 4.1 asks whether Plaintiffs had “any policy of insurance through which you were or might be insured in any manner. . . for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the INCIDENT.” Plaintiffs responded “No.” As such, no further responses is required. In response to FI 14.1, Plaintiffs objected on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks an expert opinion and a legal conclusion. Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion to justify these objections. As such, further response is required.

In response to RFPs 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, and 22, Plaintiffs stated that the “will comply” with the requests. Modern submits evidence by declaration that Plaintiffs have yet to produce responsive documents. RFP 11 asks for each “repair estimate or bid relating to or referencing any damage allegedly resulting from work performed by [Modern] at the subject residence.” Plaintiffs objected on the grounds that the request seeks an expert opinon, seeks a legal conclusion, and seeks information protected by attorney work product. Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion to justify these objections. Plaintiffs also responded that “the reports of Mark Vanderslice and Louis Krokover have been previously produced.” Modern submits evidence by declaration that no such documents were produced. Based on the foregoing, further response is required.

Based on the foregoing, the motions are GRANTED as to FI 14.1 and RFPs 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, and 22. The motion is DENIED as to FI 4.1.

Modern requests sanctions of $999 for each motion, for a total of $1,998. Although this figure is already reduced from the hours claimed in each motion, the Court finds that further reduction is necessary. Modern’s counsel claims one hour for the drafting of each reply, and four hours anticipated to attend the hearing on the motion. Given that no oppositions were filed, and that counsel will attend the same hearing on both motions, the Court reduces the sanctions award accordingly. Modern’s requests for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,782.50 for both motions.