On 11/27/2018 CONNIE LACH filed a Property - Other Eviction lawsuit against GEORGE HANNA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
*******4268
11/27/2018
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JON R. TAKASUGI
LACH CONNIE
Los Angeles, CA 90011
HANNA GEORGE
DOBAY KIMBERLY
1/11/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and ...) of 01/11/2021
1/11/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and ...)
5/7/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial) of 05/07/2020
5/7/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial)
11/27/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
11/27/2018: Summons - Summons on Complaint
11/27/2018: Complaint - Complaint
11/27/2018: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
11/27/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
11/27/2018: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)
DocketMinute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and ...)
DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and ...) of 01/11/2021; Filed by: Clerk
DocketOn the Complaint filed by Connie Lach on 11/27/2018, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice as to the entire action
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and Entry of Default and Default Judgment/Dismissal scheduled for 01/11/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 01/11/2021; Result Type to Held
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/30/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 01/11/2021
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and Entry of Default and Default Judgment/Dismissal scheduled for 01/11/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25
DocketMinute Order (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial)
DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial) of 05/07/2020; Filed by: Clerk
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/26/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 05/07/2020
DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. James E. Blancarte; Reason: Inventory Transfer
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Connie Lach (Plaintiff); As to: George Hanna (Defendant); Kimberly Dobay (Defendant)
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/30/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Connie Lach (Plaintiff)
DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Connie Lach (Plaintiff)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Connie Lach (Plaintiff)
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/26/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
Case Number: 18STLC14268 Hearing Date: October 29, 2019 Dept: 94
MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
(CCP §§ 2031.300, 2031.310)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Silvija Wolf’s Motions to Compel Plaintiffs’ Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents are GRANTED.
ANALYSIS:
I. Background
This action arose from a car accident involving Plaintiffs Tin Nguyen (“Nguyen”) and Tiffany Le (“Le”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Silvija Wolf (“Defendant”). On January 8, 2019, Defendant served Form Interrogatories (“FROG”) and Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP”) on Plaintiffs. (Motions, Lindner Decls. ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs responded to those discovery requests on March 14, 2019 with only objections. Defendant’s counsel attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel, but Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Defendant’s counsel that he had lost contact with his clients and provided an extension to file motions to compel further discovery responses by July 29, 2019. (Id., Lindner Decls. ¶¶ 7-8, citing to Exhs. D-E.)
Defendant then filed the instant Motions to Compel Plaintiffs’ Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on July 7, 2019 before the discovery deadline set by CCP § 2030.300(c). The Court also finds that Defendant has satisfied the meet-and-confer requirement of CCP § 2030.300(b) and submitted separate statements as required by CRC 3.1345(a). Plaintiffs, however, have not opposed the Motions.
II. Discussion
A. Form Interrogatories
“The propounding party must demonstrate that the responses were incomplete, inadequate or evasive, or that the responding party asserted objections that are either without merit or too general. [Citations.]” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)
Defendant asks the Court to compel Nguyen to further respond to FROG Nos. 102.1, 102.2, 102.3, 102.4, 102.5, 102.8, 104.1, 106.1, 106.2, 106.3, 106.5, 106.7, 106.8, 107.1, 108.1, 108.2, 110.1, 110.2, 111.1, 120.1, 120.3, and 120.4. (Notice of Motion to Further Compel Nguyen’s Responses to FROG p. 2.) Defendant also asks for an order compelling Le to further respond to the same FROG as Nguyen, plus FROG Nos. 112.2, 112.4, 112.5, 114.1, and 120.2. (Notice of Motion to Further Compel Le’s Responses to FROG p. 2.)
Having reviewed the Plaintiffs’ discovery responses to the FROG, the Court agrees with Defendant that the responses consist exclusively of boilerplate objections—there are no substantive responses of any sort. For this reason, the responses are incomplete and invasive within the meaning of CCP § 2030.300(a)(1).
Moreover, “[w]hile the party propounding interrogatories may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory. [Citation.]” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541, emphasis added.) Here, Plaintiffs fail to oppose the Motions to justify their objections. Accordingly, Plaintiffs must be compelled to further respond to the FROG.
B. Requests for Production of Documents
Defendant further asks for an order compelling Nguyen to further respond to RFP Nos. 1-5 and Le to further respond to RFP Nos. 1-6. (Notice of Motion to Further Compel Nguyen’s Responses to FROG p. 2.) Like their responses to the FROG, Plaintiffs’ responses to the RFP also contain exclusively objections without any production of documents.
A motion to compel further responses to an inspection demand must set forth specific facts showing “good cause” justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (CCP §2031.310(b)(1).) Here, the RFP asks for documents concerning Plaintiffs’ economic damages, the car accident, and Plaintiffs’ medical records of personal injuries. The Court finds that there is good cause for Defendant to request the documents as they are relevant to the merits of this action.
“Once good cause was shown, the burden shifted to [responding party] to justify his objection. [Citation.]” (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Plaintiffs, however, fail to oppose the Motions to justify their objections. Accordingly, , Plaintiffs must be compelled to further respond to the RFP.
D. Monetary Sanctions
Given the foregoing, monetary sanctions are mandatory under CCP § 2030.300(d) and § 2031.310(h). The Court finds $1,396.60 in attorney fees and costs to be reasonable and awards such amount against Plaintiffs only, each shall pay half of the amount.
III. Conclusion & Order
For the reasons stated, the Motions are GRANTED.
Nguyen is ordered to further respond to FROG Nos. 102.1, 102.2, 102.3, 102.4, 102.5, 102.8, 104.1, 106.1, 106.2, 106.3, 106.5, 106.7, 106.8, 107.1, 108.1, 108.2, 110.1, 110.2, 111.1, 120.1, 120.3, and 120.4 and RFP Nos. 1-5. Le is ordered to further respond to FROG Nos.