Denise Anderson et al v. United Rental Realty, LLC

[2] PLAINTIFFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is DENIED as to the request to compel the production of documents in response to RFPS (defined below) Nos. 1-4, 6-8, and 10-12 and the request to compel further responses to RFPS No. 9, FROGS (defined below) Nos. 12.1 and 12.7, and SPROGS (defined below) Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 10. The motion is GRANTED as to the request to compel further responses to RFPS Nos. 1-4, 6-8, and 10-12, FROGS Nos. 15.1, and SPROGS Nos. 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 16. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED. Defendant shall provide further verified, code compliant responses, in accordance with this ruling within 10 calendar days of notice of entry of order. Plaintiffs are directed to provide notice of entry of order.

A. PROCEDURAL MATTER

Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Denise Anderson, Trustee of The Denise E. Anderson Trust, and Scott R. Cowan, Trustee of The Scott R. Cowan Trust (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2019.010 et. seq., 2030.210 et. seq., 2031.210 et seq., 2025.210 et seq., and 2033.280, subdivision (c),1 for an order compelling Defendant and Cross-Complainant United Rental Realty, LLC (“Defendant”) to serve further verified responses to: Plaintiffs’ (1) First Set of Requests for Productions (“RFPS”) Nos. 1-4 and 6-12;2 (2) Form Interrogatories—General (“FROGS”) Nos. 12.1, 12.7, and 15.1; and (3) First Set of Special Interrogatories (“SPROGS”), Nos. 3-11, 13, 15-16 (collectively, “Subject Discovery”).

Plaintiffs further move for an order imposing monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $4,870. Although not contained in their Notice of Motion, Plaintiffs further seek an order compelling Defendant to produce responsive documents to RFPS Nos. 1-4, 6-8, and 10- 12.

B. RFPS

With respect to the production of documents, Plaintiffs argue that, contrary to Defendant’s response to RFPS Nos. 1-4, 6-8, and 10-12 that it “has produced the nonobjectionable, non-privileged documents in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of the Responding Party,” Defendant has not produced any documents. Plaintiffs acknowledge in Reply that, after Plaintiffs filed the instant motion, Defendant produced 2,847 pages of documents. In Reply, Plaintiffs do not address these RFPS with respect to the document production piece.

As such, the motion to compel Defendant to produce responsive documents to RFPS Nos. 1-4, 6-8, and 10-12 is DENIED as MOOT.

1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified. 2 Plaintiffs’ Support Memorandum only identifies RFP No. 9, but Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement identifies RFPS Nos. 1-4 and 6-12. It appears that Defendant understood Plaintiffs’ motion as seeking a further response to all RFPS Nos. 1-4 and 6-12 as Defendant provided a substantive response. (See generally Responsive Separate Statement.)

With respect to the responses to RFPS Nos. 1-4, 6-8, and 10-12, Plaintiffs take issue with the boilerplate objections repeated verbatim and argue that Defendant has not identified whether, and which, documents or category of documents are being withheld based on an objection or privilege.

“If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following: (1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made [and] (2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection.” (§ 2031.240, subd. (b).) “If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” (§ 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).)

In Opposition, Defendant attempts to justify its statement of partial compliance under section 2031.240, subdivision (a), and nevertheless states that it “has now produced all responsive documents.” (See Responsive Separate Statement, pp. 1-15.)

The Court finds that Defendant’s statement of partial compliance (i.e., that it has produced the “non-objectionable, non-privileged documents”) fails to comply with section 2031.240, subdivisions (b) and (c), and leaves Plaintiffs guessing as to whether documents were withheld based on an objection and, if so, what ground.

As such, the motion to compel responses as to RFPS Nos. 1-4, 6-8, and 10-12 is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide a further verified response either with a statement of full compliance as provided in Opposition or with sufficient specificity as to the category of documents withheld and the grounds upon which they are withheld. If documents have been withheld on privilege grounds, a privilege log shall be provided.

With respect to RFPS No. 9, Defendant responded that “[a]fter a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party is unable to comply with request on the ground that this category has never existed.” Plaintiffs take issue with the language that “this category has never existed,” arguing that it is unclear and evasive as the request is not for categories, but for documents. In Opposition, Defendant argues that its response mirrors the exact language from section 2031.230.

“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (§ 2031.230. Emphasis added.)

The Court finds that Defendant’s response to RFPS No. 9 is sufficient. To the extent the use of the term “category” is unclear or confusing, Defendant provides clarification in its Opposition, stating that Defendant “is unable to comply because that category of documents has never existed.” (Opposition, p.

5. Emphasis added.)

As such, the motion as to RFPS No. 9 is DENIED.

C. FROGS

With respect to the FROGS, Plaintiffs recognize that, after Plaintiffs filed the instant motion, Defendant supplemented FROGS No. 12.1. Plaintiffs do not appear to raise any criticisms with Defendant’s supplemental response, and, in any event, the sufficiency of Defendant’s supplemental response is not properly before the Court on this motion. Additionally, Plaintiffs do not address FROGS No. 12.7 in Reply and instead expressly “focus only on Defendant’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1.” (Reply, p. 4.)

Thus, the motion as to FROG Nos. 12.1 and 12.7 is DENIED as MOOT.

With respect to FROGS No. 15.1, Defendant only asserted objections, essentially contending that it is excused from providing the facts, witnesses, and documentary evidence to support its denials and affirmative defenses because that information is the subject of investigation and discovery, and Defendant does not know whether all affirmative defenses are relevant yet. Plaintiffs contend this response is not permitted.

The Court agrees. Defendant’s response fails to comply with section 2030.220: “(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. (c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (§ 2030.220, subd. (a).)

As such, the motion as to FROGS No. 15.1 is GRANTED.

D. SPROGS

With respect to the SPROGS, Plaintiffs recognize that, after Plaintiffs filed the instant motion, Defendant supplemented SPROGS Nos. 5, 8, and 10. Plaintiffs do not appear to raise any criticisms with Defendant’s supplemental responses, and, in any event, the sufficiency of Defendant’s supplemental responses is not properly before the Court on the instant motion.

Thus, the motion as to SPROGS Nos. 5, 8, and 10 is DENIED as MOOT.

With respect to SPROGS Nos. 4 and 7, Defendant asserted objections with a substantive response. On its face, Defendant’s response appears complete and straightforward. Plaintiffs

argue, in conclusory fashion, that the response is incomplete and evasive because it provides only a partial narrative and fails to fully describe all facts supporting the allegation. Without more, the Court is not able to conclude that Defendant’s substantive response is incomplete or evasive.

As such, the motion as to SPROGS Nos. 4 and 7 is DENIED.

With respect to SPROGS Nos. 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, and 15-16, Defendant asserted objections and exercised its right under section 2030.230 to produce documents. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant has failed to justify its objections and has further failed to specify the documents in sufficient detail to permit Plaintiffs to locate and identify them as readily as Defendant could, as required by section 2030.230. Defendant does not address Plaintiffs’ contention that it failed to comply with section 2030.230.

The Court finds that Defendant’s exercise of section 2030.230 fails to comply with the requirements therein. Specifically, Defendant fails to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. “This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” (§ 2030.230.) Given that 2,847 pages of documents have been produced, something more specific than “See separately produced documents” is required here.

As such, the motion as to SPROGS Nos. 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 16 is GRANTED.

E. SANCTIONS

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party . . . who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to [interrogatories or requests for production of documents], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Given the mixed ruling, the Court does not find that Defendant unsuccessfully opposed the motion. As such, Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

Alexander Rowland et al v. Newco Capital Group LLC et al 25CV002471

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to June 02, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B to permit Applicant to provide sufficient notice of the hearing.

“The court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion that has not been properly noticed for hearing on the date in question.” (Diaz v. Prof. Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1204-05.) Applicant failed to provide adequate notice of the hearing date.

10