18-CIV-04199 STRUCTURE, LLC VS. NEWSWEEK MEDIA GROUP, INC.

STRUCTURE, LLC NEWSWEEK MEDIA GROUP, INC.
JAMES G. SNELL MARIA C. SEVERSON

STRUCTURE, LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND FOR ORDER AWARDING MONETARY SANCTIONS TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Structure, LLC’s (“Structure”) motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories and requests for admissions is GRANTED. Defendant IBT Media, Inc. fka Newsweek Media Group, Inc. (“Newsweek”) is ordered to provide full and complete responses within 14 days of this order. To the extent Newsweek has already provided the information sought, it may respond accordingly. Structure asserts that Newsweek has waived objections for failure to respond to the discovery requests by October 2. The court agrees. With respect to this issue, however, the court notes that Structure refused to grant any extension for responding to its discovery requests. Further, during the period from October 9 to October 26, counsel for Structure indicated that he was discussing the issue of an extension with his client, suggesting that the possibility of an extension remained open. Finally, the court notes that Structure cites no authority for the blanket assertion that “Form interrogatories are judicially created, and thus inappropriate for objection.” In light of the foregoing, the court is confident that the parties can resolve Newsweek’s objections without resorting to further motion practice seeking relief from waiver. Structure’s motion for sanctions is DENIED for the reasons set forth below. Due to the timing of Structure’s discovery requests, Newsweek’s responses to the requests were due October 2, the day after its answer was filed. Notwithstanding this fact, Structure refused to grant any extension to respond to the requests, despite counsel’s assertion that it is his “practice to grant reasonable requests for extensions.” Structure provides no evidence to support the claim that Newsweek’s request for an extension was merely a delay tactic, and it does not even attempt to demonstrate how it would have been prejudiced by a reasonable extension. Additionally, Structure declined Newsweek’s request for an extension for the second time on October 26, after counsel indicated, on October 9, that he would discuss the matter with his client. [Mourlam Decl., Ex. D] As noted above, counsel’s statement that he would discuss the matter with his client appears to have left the issue of an extension open. Accordingly, during the period from October 9 to October 26, counsel for Structure was complicit in the delayed receipt of discovery responses.

Newsweek provided responses to discovery on November 7. On November 21, counsel for Structure informed Newsweek that the responses were deficient. Structure demanded supplemental responses within 7 days, on November 28, and indicated that it would move to compel if Structure did not provide the responses by that date. Counsel stated “Please respond by supplementation on or before November 28, 2018, or we will promptly move to compel and seek sanctions. We are available at your convenience if you would like to discuss any of the foregoing, and look forward to your response.” [Mourlam Decl., Ex. I] Counsel for Structure alleges no further meet and confer efforts. The court notes that November 28 was only a week after Structure gave notice of the deficient responses, and nearly a month prior to the time permitted for filing a motion to compel further responses. Again, counsel alleges no meet and confer efforts between November 28 and December 27, the date on which this motion was filed.

It appears from the moving and opposition papers that the parties could have resolved the present discovery dispute had they addressed the issues in a simple phone call. In light of the timing of the discovery requests, the short history of this litigation, the nature of the information sought, and the minimal effort to contact opposing counsel regarding the deficient responses, the court finds that Structure did not engage in a good faith or reasonable effort to resolve the present dispute informally. As a result, Structure’s request for sanctions is denied. Further, the court finds that the request for sanctions in the amount of $21,552.50 is not reasonable and is indicative of bad faith. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff Structure, LLC shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.