Eden Gardens Center, LLC vs. Janak K. Mehtani

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted. In taking judicial notice of these documents, the court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of their contents. (See Professional Engineers v. Dep’t of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590; Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 120-121.)

34-2020-00291438-CU-BC-GDS: Eden Gardens Center, LLC vs. Janak K. Mehtani 08/01/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses SI in Department 54

By this motion, Plaintiffs appear to move to compel Defendant’s further responses to SROGs 1- 29.

SROGs 19-21, 26-29

Plaintiffs’ separate statement does not include SROGs 19-21 and 26-29. As these SROGs were not included in Plaintiffs’ separate statement, the motion to compel further responses to these SROGs is DENIED.

Not Reasonably Calculated to Lead to the Discovery of Admissible Evidence

With respect to SROGs 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12, Defendant’s initial responses asserted various objections, including “not reasonably calculated to admission evidence.” Defendant then provided a response “without waiving” said objections. In its responsive separate statement, Defendant adds new information that was not included in its original response.

The Court will construe Defendant’s objections as “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Defendant does not explain how the SROGs are not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Indeed, Defendant has provided new information in its responsive separate statement, thus suggesting that these requests may lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

Accordingly, the objection is OVERRULED.

The motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve amended responses to these SROGs removing this objection.

Calls for Speculation

With respect to SROGs 14, 16, 18, 23, 24, and 25, Defendant objected, in part, on the ground of “calls for speculation.” This objection appears to be due to Defendant’s claim of lacking sufficient personal knowledge to respond to the interrogatories.

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(c); Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1504.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00291438-CU-BC-GDS: Eden Gardens Center, LLC vs. Janak K. Mehtani 08/01/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses SI in Department 54

The motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve amended responses in compliance with Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.220(c).

SROGs 2 and 5

Defendant’s initial response stated “See Deed Transfer from Town and Country West GP to Town and Country West LLC.” Its amended response stated “there were escrow documents for the purchase which were included in the response to request for production of documents.”

These responses are deficient. It is improper to refer to other documents when responding to an interrogatory. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783-78.)

The motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve amended responses specifically identifying the documents responsive to these SROGs.

SROGs 4, 7, 10

These SROGs ask Defendant to “state all facts . . .”

Defendant’s responses do not state facts, but simply make the blanket statement that “Town and Country West LLC did purchase the FULTON PROPERTY from Town and Country West GP in connection with the deed transfer on April 23, 2018.” There are no facts regarding the acquisition of, payment made or, consideration paid in relation to the Fulton Property.

The motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve amended responses stating all facts responsive to these SROGs.

SROGs 8, 11

These SROGs ask for the identification of certain documents.

Defendant’s responses do not identify any documents, but simply make the blanket statement that “Town and Country West LLC did purchase the FULTON PROPERTY from Town and Country West GP in connection with the deed transfer on April 23, 2018.” This is not responsive.

The motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve amended responses specifically identifying the documents responsive to these SROGs.

SROGs 13, 14, 16

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00291438-CU-BC-GDS: Eden Gardens Center, LLC vs. Janak K. Mehtani 08/01/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses SI in Department 54

SROGs 13 and 16 ask Defendant to “state all facts . . .”

SROG 14 asks Defendant to “Identify all Witnesses. . .”

Defendant’s responses do not state facts or identify witnesses, but simply make the blanket statement that “upon inquiry with Town and Country GP, Responding Party was informed that any such agreement was no longer in force or effect.” This is not responsive.

The motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve amended responses specifically stating all facts responsive to SROGs 13 and 16, and identifying all witnesses responsive to SROG 14.

SROGs 22, 23

These SROGs ask Defendant to identify “personal property” that was either transferred to Defendant or was not transferred to Defendant in connection with the acquisition of the Property.

Defendant does not identify any personal property. With respect to SROG 22, it states “Responding Party took title of leftover items/fixtures in connection with purchase/transfer of the FULTON PROPERTY by operation of law.” With respect to SROG 23, it states “as to tenants identified in the rent roll, their personal property within their leased space remained their personal property.”

These responses are evasive and fail to substantively respond to the SROGs.

The motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve amended responses specifically identifying the “personal property” responsive to these SROGs.

Where the motion is granted, Defendant shall serve further written responses by no later than August 15, 2023, unless the parties agree in writing to a later date.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions against Defendant’s counsel Nilesh Choudhary of the Choudhary Law Office is DENIED. Plaintiffs seek monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030(a). These provisions do not by themselves authorize the Court to impose discovery sanctions. Instead, the authority must come from another provision of the Discovery Act. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, petition for review granted on January 25, 2023.)

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.020

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00291438-CU-BC-GDS: Eden Gardens Center, LLC vs. Janak K. Mehtani 08/01/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses SI in Department 54

is DENIED. This section applies when a party wholly fails to meet and confer. Here, Mr. Choudhary did not wholly fail to meet and confer.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.050(a) is DENIED.

Plaintiffs did not seek monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d).

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions due to Defendant’s failure to serve the exhibits to the declaration is DENIED.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

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 OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00291438-CU-BC-GDS: Eden Gardens Center, LLC vs. Janak K. Mehtani 08/01/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses SI in Department 54

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 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.