ARSHA CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CEDARWOOD CAPITAL PARTNERS LA CIENGA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC00542    Hearing Date: February 20, 2020    Dept: 26

Arsha Corp. v. Cedarwood Capital Partners La Cienega, LLC, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, DEPOSITION; SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.380, 2025.450)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Arsha Corporation’s Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Cedarwood Capital Partners La Cienega, LLC To Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions is DENIED. THE HEARING ON THE REMAINING REQUESTS IN THE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED IS CONTINUED TO APRIL 20, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, PLAINTIFF IS TO PAY THREE (3) ADDITIONAL MOTION FILING FEES. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE MOTIONS BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Plaintiff Arsha Corporation’s Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Cedarwood Capital Partners La Cienega, LLC’s Deposition and Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Arsha Corporation (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract, open book account, fraud, and foreclosure of mechanic’s lien against Defendant Cedarwood Capital Partners La Cienega, LLC (“Defendant”) on January 15, 2019. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Motion to Compel Deposition on January 27, 2020. Defendant filed an opposition to the Motion to Compel Responses on February 5, 2020.

Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests

Improper Combination of Multiple Discovery Motions

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses attempts to combine multiple requests for relief into a single motion. The Motion moves for an order compelling Defendant to furnish responses to three separate discovery requests: (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One; (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One; and (3) Requests for Production, Set One. It also moves for an order deeming the Request for Admission, Set One, admitted.

One of the statutes under which Plaintiff moves is Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, which states in relevant part: “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it. . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) The other moving statutes, Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2033.280, also include this language of singularity. Based on this language, it is clear the Civil Discovery Act contemplates that the motions filed under these statutory provisions will be brought separately as to each party on whom the discovery was propounded discovery and as to each separate set of discovery propounded.

Also, filing the motions as a single motion negatively impacts the court’s calendar by placing more motions on the calendar than slots have been provided by the online reservation system. Indeed, here, Defendants filed the instant discovery motion as a single “Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery)” when it is in fact it should be reserved as four separate Motions to Compel Responses.

Finally, combining discovery motions allows the moving party (or parties in this case) to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. “[I]t is mandatory for the court clerks to demand and receive statutorily required filing fees.” (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Here, Plaintiff has only paid one filing fee for what should have been reserved and paid for as four separate motions.

Based on the foregoing, and the Court will rule only on the Motion as to the Form Interrogatories, Set One. The hearing on the remaining discovery requests is continued to APRIL 20, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, PLAINTIFF IS TO PAY THREE (5) ADDITIONAL MOTION FILING FEES. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE MOTIONS BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

On December 4, 2019, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant. (Motion, Thompson Decl. ¶2 and Exh. A.) Plaintiff contends that as of the filing of the Motion on Janaury 27, 2020, Defendant had not served responses. (Id. at ¶4.) When a party fails to respond to the propounded discovery requests, the propounding party is entitled to verified responses, without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.) There is no requirement for a meet and confer effort prior to bringing a motion to compel initial responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)

In opposition, Defendant contends it timely served responses on January 8, 2020. (Opp., Dacey Decl., ¶3 and Exh. A.) Plaintiff has not filed a reply to the opposition but states that the responses were due by January 10, 2020. Accordingly, Defendant has demonstrated that the Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One should be denied. The Court further notes that although a meet and confer effort is not required, it can help resolve discovery disputes such as this one, without the Court’s intervention.

Plaintiff Arsha Corporation’s Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Cedarwood Capital Partners La Cienega, LLC To Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Sanctions; is DENIED.

Motion to Compel Deposition and Request for Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (a) states in relevant part:

If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must also “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice” and “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (2).) A court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion to compel is granted, unless the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or other circumstances would make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Plaintiff presents evidence that it served Defendant with a notice of taking deposition on December 26, 2019. (Motion, Thompson Decl., ¶2 and Exh. A.) The deposition was noticed for January 10, 2020. (Ibid.) On January 3, 2020, Defendant served an objection to the notice of deposition by mail. (Id. at ¶3 and Exh. B.) Plaintiff incorrectly contends that the objection was invalid for lack of personal service. (Id. at ¶4.) Personal service of an objection is only required when service is on the third court day before the deposition date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (b).) Here, the objection was served five court days before the deposition date and service by mail was permissible.

The Motion is also not accompanied by a meet and declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a). Nothing in the supporting declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that an attempt was made upon receipt of the objection to resolve the discovery dispute, nor was any such attempt made following Defendant’s non-appearance. (Motion, Thompson Decl., ¶¶5-6.)

Finally, the Motion does not “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice” as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a). (Motion, Thompson Decl.) In fact, the Motion does not address the request for production at all.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has not shown it is entitled to an order compelling Defendant’s attendance at deposition. Plaintiff Arsha Corporation’s Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Cedarwood Capital Partners La Cienega, LLC’s Deposition and Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.