Yiota Patiris v. Kalaris Family Vineyard LLC

A. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

Cross-Complainants move, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.260 and 2030.290, 1 for an order compelling (1) Cross-Defendant Daniel Cunningham (“Mr. Cunningham”) and Cross-Defendant Dan’s Creative Enterprises, Inc. (“Dan’s Creative”) (collectively, “Cross-Defendants”) to provide supplemental verified responses, without objections, to Cross-Complainant’s propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One (“Form Rogs”), No. 15.1; (2) Mr. Cunningham to provide supplemental verified responses, without objections, to Special Interrogatories, Set One (“Special Rogs”), Nos. 14, 32, 44, and 45, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPDs”), No. 21; and (3) Dan’s Creative to provide supplemental verified responses, without objections, to Cross-Complainant’s Special Rogs Nos. 16, 34, and 47 and RPDs No.

20.

Cross-Complainants further move, pursuant to sections 2023.010 and 2030.030, for monetary sanctions to be awarded in favor of Cross-Complainants and against Cross-Defendants.

The Motion is made on the grounds that the responses fail to comply with the requirements of section 2030.220 in that they are not straightforward, and/or are incomplete or evasive.

B. LEGAL STANDARD

On receipt of a response to RPDs, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (§ 2031.310, subd. (a).)

A party moving to compel responses to production of documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (§ 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) “[A]bsent a claim of privilege or attorney work product, the party who seeks to compel production has met his burden of showing good cause simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) “In the context of discovery, evidence is ‘relevant’ if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement.” (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to justify its objection(s). (See Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at 98.)

For interrogatories, the propounding party has the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, but “the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.” (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21.) To show an interrogatory seeks relevant, discoverable information “is not the burden of [the party propounding interrogatories]. As a litigant, it is entitled to demand answers to its interrogatories, as a matter of right, and without a prior showing, unless the party on whom those interrogatories are served objects and shows cause why 1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.

the questions are not within the purview of the code section.” (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 422.)

C. DISCUSSION

By Minute Order dated February 5, 2026, the Court ordered Cross-Defendants to, within 10 days of notice of entry of order, provide verified responses, without objections, to Cross- Complainants’ Form Rogs, Special Rogs, and RPDs, and further imposed monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,350 against Cross-Defendants. (Declaration of Rafael Rios III, ¶ 5 (“Rios Decl.”).) Cross-Defendants neither opposed that motion, requested oral argument on the tentative ruling posted the day prior to that hearing, nor appeared at the hearing. (Ibid.) Cross- Complainants served notice of entry of the February 5 order on February 9. (Id., ¶ 6.) Cross- Defendants did not serve responses until April 17, and, as of the date of signing the Rios Decl., Cross-Complainants have not paid the monetary sanctions. (Id., ¶ 7.)

Cross-Complainants contend the responses contain incomplete, deficient, and evasive answers as follows.

1. Form Rogs No. 15.1

Cross-Complainants contend that Cross-Defendants’ responses to No. 15.1 are deficient because they consist of a single narrative paragraph of general facts, which fail to provide detailed facts and fail to identify which facts support which specific denials or defenses. The Court agrees. (See Separate Statement, 3:1-10.) No. 15.1 specifically directs the responding party to, first, identify each denial and/or affirmative defense and, second, for each, provide responses as to three sub-parts. Cross-Defendants’ response fails to comply therewith.

Cross-Complainants have therefore met their burden on the motion. By failing to file an opposition, Cross-Defendants have failed to meet their burden of justifying the response. As such, the motion to compel a further response from Cross-Defendants on Form Rogs No. 15.1 is GRANTED.

2. Special Rogs

No. 14 to Mr. Cunningham and No. 16 to Dan’s Creative:

These Special Rogs ask: “Did the plans for the construction of the NEW BRIDGE call for the abutments to be placed outside the 100-year flood water elevation?”

Cross-Complainants argue that Cross-Defendants’ responses do not directly answer yes, no, or state a lack of sufficient information to respond to the interrogatory, and that Cross- Complainants cannot determine with certainty what Cross-Defendants’ position is regarding the plan requirements.

The Court disagrees. Cross-Defendants’ responses include that they “lack[] the expertise to interpret or independently verify engineering or hydrological design criteria reflected in the

plans, including any designation of the 100-year flood water elevation,” then go on to state their position that “the plans do not indicate or require that the bridge abutments be placed outside the 100-year flood water elevation.” (Separate Statement, 5:5-17.)

Although Cross-Defendants failed to file an Opposition to justify their responses, the “general principle [is] that a party who seeks a court’s action in his favor bears the burden of persuasion thereon.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850; see also Evid. Code § 500.) Here, the Court finds Cross-Complainants’ representation of the responses inaccurate and is therefore not persuaded that a further response is required.

Based on the foregoing, the motion to compel a further response to Special Rogs No. 14 and 16 is DENIED.

No. 32 to Mr. Cunningham and No. 34 to Dan’s Creative:

Cross-Complainants argue that Cross-Defendants’ response fails in two respects. First, it fails to provide the addresses for two individuals identified: Ismael Vaquez and Eddy Vargas. Cross-Complainants contend they need this information to effectively locate, depose, interview, and/or serve a subpoena on these individuals. Second, Cross-Defendants vaguely identify “representatives” of Napa County and other governmental agencies without identifying the specific individuals, which Cross-Complainants contend is too vague to constitute a meaningful response.

The Court finds that Cross-Complainants have met their burden on these Special Rogs. By failing to file an opposition, Cross-Defendants have failed to meet their burden of justifying the response. As such, the motion to compel a further response to Special Rogs Nos. 32 and 34 is GRANTED.

Nos. 44-45 to Mr. Cunningham and No. 47 to Dan’s Creative:

Cross-Complainants argue that Cross-Defendants’ responses fail to provide complete account numbers for responsive bank accounts and credit cards, and further fail to provide the dates the accounts were opened and closed, authorized signatories, and current balances, as requested. With respect to the need for the full account numbers, Cross-Complainants contend that credit card issuers and banks require full account numbers to identify specific accounts and produce records and therefore Cross-Complainants cannot effectively subpoena the records without the full numbers.

The Court finds that the responses provide the authorized users, contrary to Cross- Complainants’ representation. (See Separate Statement, 8:1-6, 8:26-9:4.) The remaining information, however, is missing. By failing to file an opposition, Cross-Defendants have failed to meet their burden of justifying the response. As such, the motion to compel a further response to Special Rogs Nos. 44, 45, and 47 is GRANTED in part. Cross-Defendants shall provide a further response to Nos. 44, 45, and 47 to provide the complete account numbers and a further response to No. 44 to provide the dates the accounts were opened and closed and current

balances as of the time of the response. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the necessity for a protective order concerning the account numbers.

3. RPDs

No. 21 to Mr. Cunningham and No. 20 to Dan’s Creative:

These RPDs request all documents identified in response to Special Rogs No. 46 to Mr. Cunningham and No. 52 to Dan’s Creative. Those Special Rogs request Cross-Defendants to identity all real property owned, leased, or otherwise used by them and all documents evidencing ownership, lease or use. Cross-Defendants responded that they would produce the requested documents. Cross-Complainants contend that no responsive documents were produced.

First, Cross-Complainants fail to provide evidentiary support for the contention that no responsive documents have been produced. (See generally Rios Decl.) Second, it is unclear what further response Cross-Complainants seek and, to the extent a further response is sought, Cross- Complainants fail to set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought. (See § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) Rather, it appears Cross-Complainants’ true desire is to compel Cross-Defendants to comply with their agreement to produce documents. However, Cross- Complainants nowhere cite to, or discuss, the statutory authority governing such a request.

Based on the foregoing, the motion to compel a further response to these RPDs is DENIED.

D. SANCTIONS

Cross-Complainants request monetary sanctions pursuant to sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 for Cross-Defendants’ refusal to provide further responses in compliance with the discovery statutes. Sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 “g[i]ve trial courts a statutory basis for exercising authority to address egregious forms of misconduct not addressed elsewhere in the [Civil Discovery] Act.” (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46, 74.) “A court may invoke its independent authority to impose sanctions under sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 only when confronted with an unusual form of discovery abuse, or a pattern of abuse, not already addressed by a relevant sanctions provision.” (Ibid. Emphasis added.)

Here, Cross-Complainants’ Motion does not raise an unusual form of discovery abuse, or a pattern of abuse, not already addressed by a relevant sanctions provision under the Civil Discovery Act. (See §§ 2031.310, subd. (h), 2030.300, subd. (d).) Cross-Complainants’ failure to move for sanctions under those relevant provisions is not clear to the Court. Although the Motion raises a pattern of Cross-Defendants’ discovery abuse, the individual occurrences that make up that pattern (i.e., failure to timely response to requests, failure to provide code-compliant further responses, failure to obey court order) have relevant sanction provisions. (See ibid., §§ 2031.300, subd. (c), 2030.290, subd. (c).) Again, Cross-Complainants did not move for sanctions under those relevant provisions. Cross-Complainants have failed to show that sanctions here are

7