J. Terra Construction, Inc. v. Miranda Battenberg, et al.

1 Reference is made to the declaration filed in support of each of the motions. 2 The failure to file a written opposition or to appear at a hearing shall not be deemed an admission that the motion was proper or that sanctions should be awarded. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(b).)

Plaintiff’s counsel, Shae Luchetta, sent a meet and confer letter to Paul Greco, Battenberg’s counsel, on December 1, 2025. (Luchetta Decs., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) Mr. Greco responded on December 8, 2025, agreeing to provide supplemental responses. (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. 2.) Ms. Luchetta sent several follow-up emails to Mr. Greco, who agreed to supplement responses and extend the motion to compel deadline. The Court finds the Plaintiff adequately met and conferred prior to filing the motions.

II. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a) provides:

(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to form interrogatory nos. 302.2, 302.4, 305.3, 305.8, 305.9, 305.11, 305.12, 305.13, 309.2, 311.1, 312, 324, and 326. Plaintiff contends that Battenberg’s responses are not code compliant and are “incomplete, nonresponsive and inadequate.” (See Mot., p. 3, ll. 16-17, 19.) Plaintiff further asserts that Battenberg “failed to provide the supplemental responses she agreed to provide.” (Id., ll. 18-19.)

Plaintiff explains that its form interrogatories seek basic information about Battenberg’s asserted “construction and defect claims” used to justify nonpayment to subcontractors. The interrogatories ask Battenberg to identify alleged defects and repairs, and to state the supporting facts for her challenges to the mechanics liens. This information is directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims for mechanics lien foreclosure and quantum meruit.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s separate statement establishes that Battenberg’s responses to form interrogatories are incomplete, evasive, and nonresponsive, and therefore not code compliant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) For example, Form Interrogatory No. 305.3 asks:

Has a written estimate or evaluation been made for any item of loss or damage identified in your answer to 305.1? If so, for each estimate or

evaluation state: (a) the name, address, and telephone number of the person who prepared it and the date prepared; (b) the name, address, and telephone number of each person who has a copy of it; (c) the amount of damage stated; and (d) the basis of the estimate or evaluation.

(Sep. Stmt, p. 2, ll. 15-22.)

Battenberg responds, “Repair work was conducted and Responding party incorporates her response to the request for production herein.” (Sep. Stmt, p. 2, ll. 23-25.)

As a second example, Form Interrogatory No. 305.8 asks:

Have you made any improvements to any subject property in which you have any ownership interest? If so, state: (a) each improvement you made, including without limitation painting, landscaping, pool or spa installation, light fixture changes, cabinet changes, floor covering replacement, or room additions; (b) the date each such improvement was made; and (c) the name, address, and telephone number of the person who performed the improvement.

(Sep. Stmt, p. 3, ll. 5-13.)

Battenberg responds, “Residence construction, grading another time to address the soil erosion that occurred due to lack of erosion measures by JM construction the general contractor, and the subcontractor J.Terra. Photos of erosion have been provided in request for production served concurrently.” (Sep. Stmt, p. 3, ll. 14-17.)

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is granted. Battenberg is ordered to provide full and complete verified further responses, without objections to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories Nos. 302.2, 302.4, 305.3, 305.8, 305.9, 305.11, 305.12, 305.13, 309.2, 311.1, 312, 324, and 326, within 20 days from the date of service of notice of the order.

III. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, subdivision (a) a response to a demand for inspection shall either be a statement of compliance, a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply, or an objection. A party who receives a response to a demand may move to compel a further response under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), if a statement of compliance is incomplete or if a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

With respect to a statement of compliance, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 requires:

A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)

With respect to a statement of inability to comply, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 requires:

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.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Request for Production nos. 1-16. Having reviewed the responses, the Court finds that Battenberg’s responses are not code compliant. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.210, subd. (a), 2031.220, 2031.230.)

Request for Production No. 8: This Request asks for written communications regarding the project. Battenberg did not provide a response to this Request. Battenberg shall be compelled to provide a response to this Request and to produce any responsive documents.

Request for Production No. 15: This Request asks for documents evidencing Battenberg’s contention, if any, that she incurred increased costs to correct errors caused by Plaintiff. Battenberg responds that “[i]nvestigation is on-going and Responding Party after conducting a diligent search is getting the documents to respond. Bate Stamped Invoice from Moret Construction P. 121.” (Sep. Stmt, p. 4, ll. 16-19.) This response is noncompliant with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 because it fails to state the specific reason for the inability to comply (e.g., the document never existed, has been lost

or stolen, has been destroyed, or is not in the possession, custody or control of the responding party), and it fails to identify the name and address of the person or organization believed to have the items. Battenberg shall be compelled to provide a further response to this Request and to produce any responsive documents.

Requests for Production Nos. 1-7, 9, 14, 16: Battenberg responds to each of these Requests by producing or identifying responsive documents and electronically stored information. By way of example, Battenberg’s response to Request No. 2 states, “Bate Stamped emails Pages 1-92; Bate Stamped Invoices 93-102; Liens 103-112- all videos and 16 photos previously listed below, Social Media 113-115; Bate stamped Report of inspection 116-120. Moret Construction Invoice P. 121.” (Sep. Stmt, p. 2, ll. 24-27.)

Plaintiff gives substantially the same reason for compelling further responses, namely that “Battenberg’s response and document production fail to comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280(a) which provides, ‘Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the document respond.’ Battenberg’s response essentially lists all the documents produced as responsive to every request. By doing so, Battenberg fails to identify each document with respect to the specific request number to which that document is responsive.” (Sep. Stmt, p. 2, ll. 1-17.)

The Court finds that Battenberg’s responses are not code compliant. These responses fail to provide a statement agreeing to comply with a particular demand, and a statement whether compliance will be in full or in part as required by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210, subdivision (a) and 2031.220. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.210, subd. (a), 2031.220.) Battenberg shall be compelled to provide further responses to these Requests and to produce any responsive documents.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is granted. Battenberg is ordered to provide complete, verified, code-compliant further responses to Request for Production Nos. 1–16 without objections, and produce all responsive documents, within 20 days from the date of service of the notice of order. Any responsive documents produced, “shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, subd. (a).) To the extent Battenberg asserts that any documents are privileged, the supplemental responses should identify those documents and list them on a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).)

IV. REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS

Plaintiff moves for sanctions for each motion. Plaintiff’s request is supported by declarations from its counsel, Shae Luchetta. The declarations state that Ms. Luchetta’s hourly rate is $400. Plaintiff seeks $2,860 (7 hours plus $60.00 filing fee) for the motion concerning form interrogatories and $3,060 (7.5 hours plus $60.00 filing fee) for the motion concerning requests for production. These amounts reflect the cost to file these motions, time spent preparing the motions and an estimate of anticipated additional time to review any opposition, prepare a reply brief, and prepare for and attend the hearing.

The Court finds a reduction in the claimed time is warranted based on the lack of complexity in the motions, including the absence of objections in the responses to the form interrogatories and requests for production. The Court shall award Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of 4.75 hours for preparing the motions (i.e. 2.5 hours for the request for production motion and 2.25 hours for the form interrogatories motion) and.5 hour for attending the hearing, for a total of 5.25 hours at the rate of $400 per hour. The Court further allows filing fee costs in the total amount of $120.00 for the two motions. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,220 are awarded in favor of Plaintiff and against Battenberg. 3

ORDER (PROPOSED)

The motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is granted. Battenberg is ordered to provide full and complete verified further responses, without objections to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories Nos. 302.2, 302.4, 305.3, 305.8, 305.9, 305.11, 305.12, 305.13, 309.2, 311.1, 312, 324, and 326, within 20 days from the date of service of notice of this order.

The motion to compel further responses to requests for production is granted. Battenberg is ordered to provide complete, verified, code-compliant further responses to Request for Production Nos. 1–16 without objections, and produce all responsive documents, within 20 days from the date of service of the notice of order. Any responsive documents produced, “shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, subd. (a).) To the extent Battenberg asserts that any documents are privileged, the supplemental responses should identify those documents and list them on a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).)

Plaintiff shall serve notice.

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,220 are awarded in favor of Plaintiff and against Battenberg within 30 days of this ruling.

3 The Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act even though no opposition to the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).) 6