STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS. CURTIS U COOPER ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Tuesday, June 10, 2025, line 4, DEFENDANT CURTIS COOPER III'S Motion To Compel Further Responses To Special Interrogatories And Request For Production Of Documents (tentative ruling part 1 of 2)

Defendant and cross-complainant Curtis Cooper III moves to compel further responses to his Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, from plaintiff and cross-defendant Student Loan Solutions LLC (SLS). Cooper also seeks sanctions. For the reasons stated herein, the court denies the request for further responses but grants partial sanctions to Cooper in the amount of $1000.

On March 5, 2025, this court granted in large part Cooper's motion to compel SLS to supplement its RFP and interrogatory responses. SLS supplemented on March 25, 2025, but Cooper deemed the responses not yet sufficient. The parties met and conferred. On May 7, Cooper's counsel said she would file another motion to compel. Also on May 7, SLS represented that it would supplement, and extend Cooper's time to move to compel, but did not provide a date by which it would supplement and did not indicate that its supplement would moot any of the issues Cooper's meet and confer efforts identified. Cooper filed this motion on May 8, 2025.

The court finds that SLS's second supplemental responses are sufficient and substantially comply with its discovery obligations. The court does not order further production. However, it finds that this motion was necessary for Cooper to obtain the information he sought. SLS's initial supplemental responses were deficient and evasive notwithstanding the court's prior order compelling the responses. For instance, it was not until SLS's second supplement that it made a straightforward statement that it had no documents or facts supporting certain bona fide error affirmative defenses.

Cooper initiated meet and confer efforts on April 8. Cooper was not required to wait an indefinite time until SLS supplemented; SLS did not offer to supplement until the eve of Cooper's motion deadline. Service of amended discovery responses while a motion to compel is pending does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to award sanctions. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390.)

The court reduces the amount in light of Cooper's partial success with this motion and orders SLS to pay $1000 to Cooper in discovery sanctions within 20 days of entry of this order. (end of tentative ruling part 1 see part 2) = (302/CVA) | |