This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/14/2021 at 23:53:37 (UTC).

ANDREW BARACCO VS EAST COAST FOODS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Case Summary

On 02/25/2021 ANDREW BARACCO filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against EAST COAST FOODS, INC , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RICHARD L. FRUIN and GREGORY KEOSIAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******7643

  • Filing Date:

    02/25/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RICHARD L. FRUIN

GREGORY KEOSIAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

BARACCO ANDREW

Defendants

EAST COAST FOODS INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

EAST COAST FOODS INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

MOUZARI AZAR ESQ.

MOUZARI AZAR

Defendant Attorney

MERTENS GLEN H

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES PERSO...)

11/5/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES PERSO...)

Reply - REPLY ISO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE

10/18/2021: Reply - REPLY ISO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE

Reply - REPLY CONSOLIDATED REPLY ISO PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT

10/18/2021: Reply - REPLY CONSOLIDATED REPLY ISO PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

10/19/2021: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES IN DISPUTE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

9/29/2021: Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES IN DISPUTE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FORM INTERROGATORIES IN DISPUTE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

9/29/2021: Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FORM INTERROGATORIES IN DISPUTE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION IN DISPUTE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

9/29/2021: Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION IN DISPUTE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

9/29/2021: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

9/29/2021: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE

9/29/2021: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

9/29/2021: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT EAST COAST FOODS, INC. TO PLAINTIFF ANDREW BARACCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; DECLARATION OF GLEN H. MERTE

10/12/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT EAST COAST FOODS, INC. TO PLAINTIFF ANDREW BARACCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; DECLARATION OF GLEN H. MERTE

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT EAST COAST FOODS, INC. TO PLAINTIFF ANDREW BARACCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE; DECLARATION OF GLEN H. MERTEN

10/12/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT EAST COAST FOODS, INC. TO PLAINTIFF ANDREW BARACCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE; DECLARATION OF GLEN H. MERTEN

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT EAST COAST FOODS, INC. TO PLAINTIFF ANDREW BARACCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PERSON MOST QUALIFIED; DECLARATION OF GLEN H. MERTENS

10/12/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT EAST COAST FOODS, INC. TO PLAINTIFF ANDREW BARACCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PERSON MOST QUALIFIED; DECLARATION OF GLEN H. MERTENS

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT EAST COAST FOODS, INC. TO PLAINTIFF ANDREW BARACCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 17.1, SET ONE; DECLARATION OF GLEN H. MERTE

10/12/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT EAST COAST FOODS, INC. TO PLAINTIFF ANDREW BARACCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 17.1, SET ONE; DECLARATION OF GLEN H. MERTE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

8/3/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Case Management Order

8/4/2021: Case Management Order

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

8/4/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

20 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/23/2023
  • Hearing05/23/2023 at 09:00 AM in Department 61 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2023
  • Hearing05/15/2023 at 09:00 AM in Department 61 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2023
  • Hearing03/15/2023 at 09:00 AM in Department 61 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Post-Mediation Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (to Special Interrogatories) - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (to Requests for Production) - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (to Form Interrogatories) - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (Person Most Qualified) - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses Perso...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
32 More Docket Entries
  • 03/23/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2021
  • Docketat 11:58 AM in Department 15, Richard L. Fruin, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 03/12/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2021
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Andrew Baracco (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Andrew Baracco (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet (Addendum); Filed by Andrew Baracco (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Andrew Baracco (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Andrew Baracco (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 21STCV07643 Hearing Date: November 5, 2021 Dept: 61

Plaintiff\r\nAndrew Baracco’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production\r\nand Form and Special Interrogatories, Set One, from Defendant East Coast Foods,\r\nInc. are adjudicated as follows:

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nGRANTED\r\nas to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nGRANTED\r\nas to Special Interrogatories No. 6, 9–11, and 16.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nGRANTED\r\nas to Requests for Production No. 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 17, 20–23, 26, 34–40, 43, 45,\r\n52, 54, 57, 58, 61, and 62, and DENIED as to Request No. 51.

\r\n\r\n

Sanctions\r\nare awarded against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $2,605.20.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff\r\nAndrew Baracco’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant East Coast Foods,\r\nInc.’s Person Most Knowledgeable is GRANTED. Sanction are awarded against\r\nDefendant and its counsel in the amount of $1,068.40.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Further\r\nresponses shall be served within 30 days.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

\r\n\r\n

A party may make a\r\nmotion compelling a witness’s deposition “after service of a deposition notice”\r\nif that witness “fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it.” (Code\r\nCiv. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must include a meet-and-confer declaration\r\nand sho3–w good cause for the discovery sought. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450,\r\nsubd. (b)(1), (2).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff argues\r\nthat he served a notice of deposition upon Defendant on June 8, 2021, that\r\nDefendant served no objections, but did not produce a deponent for deposition.\r\n(Mouzari Decl. ¶¶ 3–4.) When Plaintiff asked for dates of deposition on July\r\n21, 2021, Defendant responded on August 6, 2021, stating that it was looking\r\nfor a representative to appear for deposition, but that the best person to depose\r\nfor deposition would be the third party that created the website. (Mouzari\r\nDecl. Exh. 3.) Plaintiff in two later letters reiterated its request to depose\r\nDefendant’s PMK. (Mouzari Decl. Exhs. 4, 5.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant in\r\nopposition contends that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer, and that it\r\nremains willing to provide a representative for deposition. (Opposition at pp.\r\n3–4.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s\r\narguments are unpersuasive. Plaintiff served a notice of deposition upon\r\nDefendant, and Defendant indicated a willingness to comply, but also pointed\r\ntoward the third party consultant who created the website. Defendant indicated\r\nno unwillingness to provide a deponent, yet failed to respond to Plaintiff’s\r\nlater letters requesting dates of deposition, which it ought to have taken as\r\nan indication that Plaintiff wished to proceed with the noticed deposition.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The motion to compel\r\ndeposition is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

If the court grants\r\na motion to compel deposition, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction\r\nunder Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who\r\nnoticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the\r\ndeponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the\r\nsanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make\r\nthe imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd.\r\n(g)(1).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff here seeks\r\n$2,568.40 in sanctions representing five hours of attorney work at a rate of\r\n$500 per hour, plus $68.40 in costs. (Mouzari Decl. ¶¶ 9–11.) The court\r\nawards $1,068.40 in sanctions against Defendant and its counsel.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nMOTION TO\r\nCOMPEL FURTHER

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“A party may demand\r\nthat any other party produce . . . a document that is in the possession,\r\ncustody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.” (Code Civ. Proc.,\r\n§ 2031.010(b).) The demanding party may move for an order compelling further\r\nresponse to the demand if the demanding party deems that (1) a statement of\r\ncompliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to\r\ncomply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection in the\r\nresponse is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).) “The\r\nmotion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the\r\ndiscovery sought by the demand,” and “[t]he motion shall be accompanied by a\r\nmeet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n2031.310(b).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A motion to compel\r\na further response to an inspection demand must set forth specific facts\r\nshowing “good cause” justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.\r\n(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1); Kirkland\r\nv. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Unless there is a\r\nlegitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, that burden is\r\nmet simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th\r\n443, 444.) Once the moving party demonstrates good cause for the discovery, the\r\nburden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully\r\nrespond to the inspection demand. (Coy v Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d\r\n210, 220.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to\r\nthe action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010(a).) If a\r\npropounding party is not satisfied with the response served by a responding\r\nparty, the former may move the court to compel further interrogatory\r\nresponses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300;\r\nSinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific\r\nHealthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) The propounding party must demonstrate that\r\nthe responses were incomplete, inadequate or evasive, or that the responding\r\nparty asserted objections that are either without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a)(1)–(3); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 403.)

\r\n\r\n

a. \r\nForm\r\nInterrogatories

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response\r\nto Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, which asked defendant to identify and describe evidence\r\nand witnesses supporting its denials of any requests for admission served upon\r\nit. Defendant objected to the interrogatory on the grounds that it was\r\nduplicative of several other interrogatories and requests for production.\r\n(Separate Statement at p. 2.)

\r\n\r\n

Defendant in opposition argues that Plaintiff\r\nfailed to meet and confer before filing the motion, as it served supplemental\r\nresponses on August 18, 2021, which Plaintiff failed to address. (Opposition at\r\npp. 3–4.) But this argument is unpersuasive, as Plaintiff indeed sent another\r\nletter following the responses and taking issue with them, but also because\r\nDefendant’s amended response to Interrogatory No. 17.1 is identical to its\r\noriginal. (Separate Statement at p. 2.)

\r\n\r\n

Defendant further argues that Plaintiff has\r\nfailed to rebut Defendant’s objection based on redundancy. (Opposition at pp.\r\n4–6.) But this argument is twice-confused. First, a party bringing a motion to\r\ncompel further has no burden to rebut the responding party’s objections;\r\nit is the responding party that bears the burden to justify any objections\r\noffered, once a proper motion has been filed. (See Coy v. Superior Court of\r\nContra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221.) Second, Defendant has\r\nnot met its own burden to justify its objections, and the materials submitted\r\nwith the motion show that their objections lack merit. The special\r\ninterrogatories identified by Defendant do not concern requests for admissions,\r\nbut rather Defendant’s affirmative defenses and the claims in general. (See 9/29/2021\r\nSpecial Interrogatories Motion Exh. 1.) And the requests for production that\r\nDefendant cites are not duplicative, as the requests seek the production of\r\ndocuments, whereas Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 requests the identification of\r\ninformation. Defendant’s argument lacks merit.

\r\n\r\n

The motion is therefore GRANTED as to Form\r\nInterrogatory No. 17.1.

\r\n\r\n

b. \r\nSpecial\r\nInterrogatories

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses\r\nto Special Interrogatories No. 6, 9–11, and 16. These interrogatories asked\r\nDefendant to describe facts related to the claims made in its answer, and to\r\ndescribe any accessibility analyses or policies concerning the website at\r\nissue. Defendant objected to Interrogatory No. 6 on the grounds that it was\r\nduplicative of a prior interrogatory. (Separate Statement at p. 2.) It\r\nresponded to the remaining interrogatories regarding website accessibility by\r\nstating that it reviewed the website’s accessibility in consultation with the\r\nthird party consultant that created the site, and that its policies for\r\ncreating and operating the web site were to act in compliance with applicable\r\nlaws. (Separate Statement at pp. 3–8.)

\r\n\r\n

The court agrees with Plaintiff that the\r\npresent responses are inadequate and evasive. Special Interrogatory No. 6 asked\r\nfor information related to Defendant’s allegations in its answer. Although this\r\nwas similar to Special Interrogatory No. 5, the fifth interrogatory sought only\r\ninformation that Defendant thought supported its affirmative defenses, while\r\nthe sixth interrogatory sought all information related to any claims made in\r\nthe answer, whether they supported Defendant’s claims or otherwise. The\r\ninterrogatories are thus not duplicative.

\r\n\r\n

A further response is likewise required for\r\nthe remaining interrogatories. Defendant’s responses are vague and evasive.\r\nAsked to describe its policies and process concerning the website’s\r\naccessibility, Defendant merely responded at all events that it worked with a\r\nthird party entity to ensure the website complied with applicable laws.\r\nResponses at such a high level of generality are of little use, and warrant\r\nsupplementation.

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to\r\nSpecial Interrogatories No. 6, 9–11, and 16.

\r\n\r\n

c. \r\nRequests\r\nfor Production

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses\r\nto Requests for Production No. 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 17, 20­–23, 26, 34–40, 43, 45,\r\n51, 52, 54, 57, 58, 61, and 62.

\r\n\r\n

Request No. 2 sought documents referenced in\r\nDefendant’s response to interrogatories, which it objected to on the grounds\r\nthat it had not responded to any interrogatories. (Separate Statement at p. 2.)\r\nRequest No. 3 sought documents tending to refute the allegations of the\r\nComplaint, which Defendant argued was duplicative of Request No. 1, which had\r\nsought documents related to Defendant’s answer. (Separate Statement at p. 3.)\r\nRequests No. 7, 17, and 20–23 sought documents related to Defendant’s\r\naccessibility policies and standards applicable to the website at issue, which\r\nDefendant offered vagueness objections to and claimed was redundant of other\r\nrequests. (Separate Statement at pp. 4–7.) Requests No. 9 and 10 sought the\r\nsource code of the website, which Defendant stated it has not found. (Separate\r\nStatement at pp. 4–5.)

\r\n\r\n

Request No. 26 sought documents related to\r\nwebsite development, which Defendant objected to as redundant of Request No.\r\n25, which concerned website design. (Separate Statement at pp. 7–8.) Defendant\r\nonce again offered redundancy objections to Requests No. 34–40, 43, and 52\r\nwhich related to website access barriers and maintenance of the site. (Separate\r\nStatement at pp. 8–10.) Finally, Requests No. 43, 45, 54, 57, 58, 61, and 62,\r\nsought documents specifically regarding the denials to Plaintiff’s requests for\r\nadmissions, which Defendant argued were not applicable as the admissions had\r\nbeen denied subject to objections. (Separate Statement at pp. 11–15.)

\r\n\r\n

The requests are supported by good cause, in\r\nthat each relates to the subject matter of this litigation. Defendant’s\r\nresponses, meanwhile, are incomplete, and its objections are without merit.\r\nDefendant repeatedly asserts redundancy based objections to requests concerning\r\ndifferent subject matters, on the grounds that the subject matters\r\nsubstantially overlap. Yet this is not a valid basis for objection if there\r\nexists good cause for a distinction in the requests at issue — such as Requests\r\nNo. 25 and 26, with one related to website development, and another related to\r\nwebsite design. In many instances, Defendant declines to answer a request by\r\nasserting its redundancy in relation to another request, only to find that\r\nDefendant has not responded to either request. (Separate Statement at pp. 4–6\r\n(Requests No. 17, 17, 20–23).) Such\r\nobjections are not helpful in discovery, and are not well-taken with this\r\nmotion.

\r\n\r\n

Where Defendant supplies other responses,\r\nthey are evasive and not code-compliant. Defendant argues that it provided\r\nanswers to Requests No. 9 and 10, which sought the website source code, by\r\nstating that another entity had designed the site, but without providing a\r\nstatement of inability to comply after a diligent search as required under Code\r\nof Civil Procedure § 2031.230. Requests No. 61 and 62 sought documents\r\nconfirming Defendant’s denial that its website provided information about goods\r\nand services offered at its restaurants, to which Defendant only responded by\r\nreferring to the website itself, without offering objection or a statement of\r\ncompliance under Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.220 (Separate Statement at pp.\r\n14–15.) And in some responses, Defendant mischaracterizes its responses to\r\nother discovery, declining to answer Requests No. 54 and 57 by arguing that it\r\n“largely objected” to the requests for admissions at issue, despite the fact\r\nthat Defendant denied the requests for admissions to which the requests relate.\r\n(See 9/29/2021 Form Interrogatory Motion Exh. 3.)

\r\n\r\n

There is one request at issue in this motion\r\nfor which Defendant’s objection has merit. Request No. 51 asked for documents\r\nconcerning Defendant’s document retention policy, to which Defendant provided a\r\nspecific objection as to the lack of time-frame on the request. (Separate\r\nStatement at p. 11.) The court agrees that Plaintiff has not shown good cause\r\nto discovery all documents evidencing Defendant’s document preservation policy\r\nwithout bounds as to time.

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to\r\nRequests No. 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 17, 20­–23, 26, 34–40, 43, 45, 52, 54, 57, 58, 61,\r\nand 62, and DENIED as to Request No. 51.

\r\n\r\n

d. Sanctions

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Statute provides that the court shall impose sanctions upon\r\na party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response\r\nto interrogatories or requests for production of documents, absent substantial\r\njustification otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300, subd. (d); 2031.310,\r\nsubd. (h).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff asks for $2,318.40 in connection with the form interrogatories\r\nmotion, representing 4.5 hours of attorney work at $400 per hour, plus $68.40\r\nin costs (Mouzari Decl. ¶¶ 12–15); $2,818.40 for the special interrogatories\r\nmotion, representing 5.5 hours of attorney work and $68.40 in costs (Mouzari\r\nDecl. ¶¶ 12–15); and $2,568.40 for the requests for production motion,\r\nrepresenting five hours of attorney work and $68.40 in costs. (Mouzari Decl. ¶¶\r\n12–15.) This yields a total sanctions request of $7,705.20.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The court awards sanctions against Defendant and its counsel\r\nin the amount of $2,605.20 for the motions to compel further.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where EAST COAST FOODS INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MERTENS GLEN H. ESQ.