2015-00188583-CU-PO

University Management Co. vs. Evergreen Management Co.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories (Evergreen Management)

Filed By: Radcliffe, Scott E.

** If any party requests oral argument, then at the time the request is made, the requesting party shall inform the court and opposing counsel of the specific

issue(s) on which oral argument in sought. **

Construed as a motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff University Capital Management, Inc.’s (UCMI) Supplemental Interrogatory, UCMI’s motion to compel Defendant Evergreen Management Company LLC (Evergreen) to serve a further response to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 is GRANTED.

UCMI is a property management company. In the second amended complaint, UCMI alleges that several defendants, including Evergreen, disrupted its property management contracts. Evergreen answered by general denial and raised 21 affirmative defenses.

In February 2017, UCMI served its first set of form interrogatories, including Form Interrogatory No. 15.1. That interrogatory calls for all facts supporting Evergreen’s denials of material allegations as well as its affirmative defenses. It also calls for identification of documents supporting, and witnesses knowledgeable about, such facts. Evergreen served objections and some substantive responses in May 2017. The time for UCMI to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 has passed.

UCMI served it supplemental interrogatory on 10/07/17. Evergreen sought and received an extension on the time to respond. When it served his responses to the supplemental interrogatory, Evergreen supplemented some of the information supporting its affirmative defenses, but the supplementation is devoid of specific facts. In other cases it stood by its original response that it raised a defense to preserve it for trial and reserved the right to amend. And it purported to reassert the right to produce documents instead of identifying them.

Counsel met and conferred unsuccessfully. Trial is set to commence on 5/14/18.

The motion is granted for the reasons stated in UCMI’s Joint Separate Statement.

Evergreen’s request for an order directing counsel to resume the meet-and-confer process is denied. The deficiencies in Evergreen’s supplemental response are obvious, and its request for additional efforts at an informal resolution appears to be dilatory. Evergreen’s promise that further responses are forthcoming–after an extension on the time to respond was granted–is irrelevant.

Evergreen’s request for an order denying the motion on grounds UCMI’s separate statement is defective is denied as well. The separate statement substantially complies with CRC 3.1345.

No later than 2/05/18, Evergreen shall serve verified further responses to the portion of Form Interrogatory 15.1 addressing its Affirmative Defenses Nos. 2-7 and 9-20. As to affirmative defenses about which Evergreen has acquired no information since it served its initial responses, it shall so state or otherwise respond in compliance with CCP § 2030.220(c). Evergreen’s responses that it raised a defense to preserve it for trial, that “discovery is ongoing” and that it reserves the right to amend the responses shall be omitted. The same goes for indications Evergreen will produce documents in lieu of identifying them. Evergreen failed to cite CCP § 2030.230, and it failed to “specify” any writings under that section. Consequently it must identify responsive writings per the call of the interrogatory.

Nothing bars Evergreen from withdrawing any affirmative defense it concludes lacks factual support.

Pursuant to CCP § 2033.300(d), the court imposes a monetary sanction against Evergreen and its counsel, Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin Law Corporation, in the amount of $560 (2 hrs @ reasonable rate of $250/hr + $60 filing fee). Evergreen and its counsel shall pay the sanction no later than Feb. 22, 2018. If Evergreen and its counsel fail to pay the sanction by such date, then UCMI may lodge for the court’s signature a formal order awarding sanctions, which may be enforced as a separate judgment.

Evergreen’s counter-request for a monetary sanction is DENIED.