TTLC SACRAMENTO - CHAMPION OAKS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ELK GROVE RESERVE, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP, et al.

23CV002863: TTLC SACRAMENTO - CHAMPION OAKS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ELK GROVE RESERVE, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP, et al. 09/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff and cross-defendant TTLC Sacramento – Champion Oaks LLC’s (“TTLC Sacramento”) motion to compel defendants Elk Grover Reserve; Vatche Cabayan and Katia Cabayan, Trustees of the Vatche Cabayan & Katia Cabayan Family Trust; the Kerr Family LLC; Thomas P. Kerr, Inc.; Thomas P. Kerr; Bruce E. Bedig; BMB Investment Company; Reserve Interests & Management, Inc.; Margo K. Thelander; John L. Miller and Joyce Miller as Trustees of the 1993 Irrevocable Bedig Family Trust; and Mary Eugenia Shamouel (collectively, “Defendants”) to serve verified responses to TTLC Sacramento’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, (“SPROGs”) is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

On November 14, 2023, TTLC Sacramento served identical copies of the SPROGs on each of the 11 defendants. (Declaration of Daniel J. Zarchy (“Zarchy Decl.”) ¶ 2, Ex. A.) After TTLC Sacramento granted multiple extension requests, Defendants served unverified discovery responses on January 23, 2024. (Zarchy Decl. ¶¶ 3-7.)

TTLC Sacramento requested verifications multiple times prior to this motion being filed, but Defendants did not provide verifications to the discovery responses. (Zarchy Decl. ¶¶ 8-9, 14-15.) Accordingly, TTLC Sacramento seeks to compel Defendants to serve verified responses to the SPROGs. The Court notes the legal argument in TTLC Sacramento’s memorandum of points and authorities discusses the legal authority relevant to requests for production of documents, rather than special interrogatories.

TTLC Sacramento then discusses Defendants’ responses to requests for production of documents, rather than special interrogatories. (Memorandum at 5:18-25.) However, the caption and remainder of the moving papers, as well as the notice of motion and supporting declaration, refer to the SPROGs. Accordingly, the Court elects to treat this motion as what it primarily purports to be – a motion to compel verified responses to TTLC Sacramento’s SPROGs.

Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all]; Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651 [only objections are timely in unverified responses containing factual assertions and objections.].)

TTLC Sacramento’s motion is GRANTED. Defendants’ shall serve verified responses to the SPROGs no later than October 9, 2024.

TTLC Sacramento’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED because the motion was not opposed. Although California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) purports to

23CV002863: TTLC SACRAMENTO - CHAMPION OAKS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ELK GROVE RESERVE, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP, et al. 09/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 54

authorize sanctions if a motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing sanctions under the California Rules of Court must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions. (Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v. Firmaterr Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355.) However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481.)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or other notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV002863: TTLC SACRAMENTO - CHAMPION OAKS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ELK GROVE RESERVE, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP, et al. 09/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 54

Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.