Case Name: Granum Partners v. Willoughby, Stuart, Bening & Cook, et al.

Case No.: 16CV304336

This is an action for breach of contract. On December 22, 2016, Robert M. Granum filed a complaint as the assignee of all of the claims of Granum Partners against defendants Willoughby, Stuart, Bening & Cook (“WSBC”) and John Bradley (“Bradley”) (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that Defendants had unnecessarily billed Granum Partners on a summary judgment motion and an appeal of that motion because the statute of limitations defense was dispositive and Defendants did not need to present a second, gratuitous argument regarding modification. On September 14, 2018, a third amended complaint was filed, now listing Granum Partners (“GP”) as the plaintiff, and now alleging that “[i]n or about 2016, for tactical reasons plaintiff Granum Partners orally assigned to Robert M. Granum II individually (‘Robert Granum’) any and all claims against defendants Willoughby, Stuart & Bening and John Bradley (collectively, ‘Defendants’) arising out of or with respect to the legal services rendered by Defendants in connection with the legal action described herein (collectively, ‘Assignment’)… [but i]n or about March 2018, for tactical reasons, Granum Partners determined to pursue herein on its own behalf the claims against the defendants that had previously been assigned to Robert Granum individually in the Assignment… [and] orally revoked the Assignment.” (Third amended complaint (“TAC”), ¶ 3.) On May 8, 2019, GP filed a fourth amended complaint (“4AC”) against Defendants, asserting causes of action for:

1) Breach of contract (against all defendants);
2)
3) Breach of contract (against Willoughby);
4)
5) Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (against all defendants);
6)
7) Breach of fiduciary duty (against all defendants); and,
8)
9) Professional negligence (against all defendants).
10)

On December 18, 2018, Bradley served form interrogatories (“FIs”) and special interrogatories (“SIs”) on GP. On January 18, 2019, GP served its responses. Bradley was dissatisfied with GP’s responses, and after meeting and conferring and multiple agreements of extensions, on May 17, 2019, GP served amended responses to the FIs and SIs. After meeting and conferring, and after Bradley granted another extension of time for GP to serve further responses, GP ultimately did not serve further responses. On June 12, 2019, Bradley filed a motion to compel further responses to FIs 17.1 and 50.2 and SIs 2, 6, 10, 14 and 17-20. Bradley also requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion. GP filed an opposition to the motion. GP has served amended responses to SIs 17-20.

Bradley’s motion to compel further response to interrogatories

SIs number 17-20

As GP has served amended responses to SIs 17-20, the motion to compel further responses to SIs 17-20 is MOOT.

FI 17.1

The responses to FI 17.1 as to RFAs 3, 6, 9 and 12 are identical. Subdivision (b) seeks “all facts upon which [GP] base[s its] response” for the respective RFAs. In response, GP stated: “Responding party does not owe the amount stated. The amount invoiced exceeded the value of the services re[nder]ed by Granum Partners from Propounding Party.” GP has provided no facts to support its conclusion that it was overcharged. Instead, GP just cites to a number of documents and essentially asks Bradley to form his own conclusions as to GP’s position. This is clearly neither complete nor straightforward as the information reasonable available to GP permits. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220, subds. (a)-(b).)

Subdivision (d) seeks the identification of documents that support GP’s response. GP objects on the grounds that: the FI requires the preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary of documents, the burden and expense of preparing such a compilation would be substantially the same for Defendants as for GP, and the FI seeks information equally available to Defendants. These objections are baseless and are OVERRULED. The purpose of Bradley’s discovery is to ascertain GP’s positions so that he may evaluate the case, prepare for trial or settlement. (See Gonzalez v. Super. Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) Bradley is entitled to the information he seeks. GP also in response, states that Bradley may “refer, as needed, to” a list of certain pleadings filed in connection with the underlying case. Again, this response is not straightforward. Bradley is seeking a list of the universe of documents upon which GP relies for its case. It is unclear if GP is suggesting that the list is a complete list or even contains responsive documents since the response states that the documents are only “as needed” by Bradley. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220, subds. (a)-(b).)

The response to FI 17.1 as to RFA 13 is largely identical to the responses to RFAs 3, 6, 9 and 12, except, as to subdivision (b), it additionally states “For this reason and the reasons stated below, Responding Party does not agree with Judge McKenney’s determination that the fees were reasonable.” However, the response “below” does not state any reasons, and, as previously stated, GP has provided no facts to support its conclusion that it was overcharged. This response is likewise neither complete nor straightforward as the information reasonable available to GP permits. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220, subds. (a)-(b).) Additionally, the objections to subdivision (d) are likewise OVERRULED.

The response to FI 17.1 as to RFA 15, subdivisions (b) and (d) include the same objections as to subdivision (d) in the response to FI 17.1 as to RFAs 3, 6, 9, 12 and 13. The objections are likewise OVERRULED. As to subdivision (b), GP also responds “Propounding Party provided to Responding Party four banker’s boxes of documents, which included emails between Responding Party and Propounding party in each of the four boxes.” GP’s response is not responsive whatsoever. As to subdivision (d), the response suffers from the same defects as GP’s response to subdivision (d) of FI 17.1 as to RFAs 3, 6, 9, 12 and 13.

The motion to compel a further response to FI 17.1, as to RFAs 3, 6, 9, 12, 13 and 15 is GRANTED.

FI 50.2

FI 50.2 seeks a description and date of each act or omissions that GP claims is a breach of the agreement. In response, GP states “Responding Party restates and incorporates by reference the allegations of the fourth amended complaint. GP also objects with the same objection made in FI 17.1, and similarly refers to a list of documents, “as needed.” By definition, this response is not complete “in itself,” as GP contends, since it refers to another document. It is also not straightforward as every allegation of the fourth amended complaint is surely not an allegation of a breach of contract. The motion to compel a further response to FI 50.2 is GRANTED. Further, the objections are OVERRULED.

SIs 2, 6, 10 and 14

SIs 2, 6, 10 and 14 seek facts upon which GP bases its contention that Bradley is liable for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, and professional negligence, respectively. In each of its responses to these SIs, GP includes the same objections that the SIs require the preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary of documents, the burden and expense of preparing such a compilation would be substantially the same for Defendants as for GP, and the SIs seek information equally available to Defendants. These objections are OVERRULED. GP also responds by referring to documents “as needed.” GP’s response to the SIs do not contain any facts that support its contentions that Bradley should be liable. The response is not responsive and is neither complete nor straightforward. The motion to compel a further response to SIs 2, 6, 10 and 14 is GRANTED.

Requests for monetary sanctions

In opposition, GP’s counsel submits a declaration indicating that he has spent more than 15 hours researching and drafting the opposition and anticipates spending an hour preparing for and appearing at the hearing for the motion, billing at $325 per hour for a total of $4,875.00. Mr. Dolton does not formally request monetary sanctions in his declaration or support it in the opposition. Nevertheless, GP did not substantially prevail, and to the extent that it may be construed that GP requested monetary sanctions, the request is not code compliant, and is DENIED.

In connection with the motion, Bradley requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,340.00. Bradley’s counsel bills at $375 per hour, and states that he has spent more than 10 hours preparing the motion to compel and anticipates spending another 4 hours preparing for a reply, preparing for the hearing and attending and participating in the hearing. The request is code-compliant; however, the Court does not award monetary sanctions for anticipated fees or costs. Further, the memorandum was a grand total of five pages and contained very little analysis of the responses. Most of GP’s deficiencies in its responses were identical and thus did not require a lot of time. Hence, the amount of the monetary sanctions sought is excessive. Bradley’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,060.00.

Conclusion

Bradley’s motion to compel further responses to SIs 17-20 is MOOT.

Bradley’s motion to compel further responses to FI 17.1 as to RFAs 3, 6, 9, 12, 13 and 15, FI 50.2, and SIs 2, 6, 10 and 14 is GRANTED. GP shall provide verified, code-compliant further responses without objections within 10 days of service of this order.

To the extent that GP has requested monetary sanctions, the request is DENIED.

Bradley’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in part. Counsel for GP shall pay counsel for Bradley $1,060.00 within 10 calendar days of service of this Order.

The Court shall prepare the Order.