Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 21STCV23285, Date: 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23285    Hearing Date: April 28, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

ALLEGATIONS: 

On May 21, 2022, Carmen Calusian, Calvin Tahmasebi, and Kevin Tamhasebi (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Gohar Karen Amirkhanyan (“Amirkhanyan”) and Alpine Meadows Homeowners Association aka Alpine Meadows HOA (“Alpine”). The action arises out of a fire that took place in a townhouse owned by Amirkhanyan and rented by Plaintiffs. 

HISTORY:

On April 3, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Three). On April 12, 2023, Alpine filed its Opposition. On April 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Reply.

RELIEF REQUESTED:   

Plaintiffs request the Court issue an order compelling Alpine’s response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set Three) Nos. 110-117.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                LEGAL STANDARD 

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents (“RFPD”) may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive, or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (C.C.P. § 2031.310(c).) 

A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See C.C.P. § 2031.310(b)(1).) In Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court defined “good cause” as a showing that there “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.”  

If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) 

"The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." (C.C.P. § 2017.020(a).) Generally, objections on the ground of burden require the objecting party to produce evidence of (a) the propounding party's subjective intent to create burden or (b) the amount of time and effort it would take to respond. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) However, no such evidence is necessary where discovery is obviously overbroad on its face. (See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)  

II.              MERITS

Meet and Confer

On March 20, 2023, Plaintiffs initiated meet and confer correspondence with Alpine. (Yarian Decl. ¶ 12.) On March 31, 2023, Alpine’s counsel indicated to Plaintiffs that they stood by their discovery objections. (Id. ¶ 13, McClure Decl. Exh. 1.) On April 2, 2023, Alpine further indicated its position to Plaintiffs. (Yarian Decl. ¶ 14, McClure Decl. Exh. 1.)  The Court finds the meet and confer effort sufficient.

Interrogatories Nos. 110-117

The interrogatories which Plaintiff’s seek further response to are as follows:

110: Identify the full names of the individuals or offices in YOUR organization or entity that provides information about YOU to various websites, webpages or media for any purpose including advertisement.

111: Identify the full names of the individuals or offices in YOUR organization or entity that provides information about YOU to [hoa-resource.com].

112: How do YOU provide the information to be included on the [hoa-resource.com] website or webpage?

113: How often do YOU provide information to be included on the [hoa-resource.com] website or webpage?

114: On what date did YOU first communicate with [hoa-resource.com] for that website or webpage to provide information about YOU to the public?

115: On what date did YOU last communicate with [hoa-resource.com] for that website or webpage to provide information about YOU to the public?

116: How do YOU update YOUR information on [hoa-resource.com]?

117: When did YOU first use [hoa-resource.com] to advertise or provide information to the public?

To determine whether responses can be compelled the Court must first determine if Plaintiffs have shown good cause. Plaintiffs submit the declaration of their counsel Levik Yarian. Plaintiff argues one of the key issues in this case is whether Defendant had the primary ability to repair the electrical system on the property (Yarian Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff further argues Alpine has denied having the primary responsibility to repair the electrical system (Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff then argues “It appears from the internet, that the HOA advertises on various websites. Some of these websites include [hoa-resource.com] and [hoacommunity.com].” (Id. ¶ 7.)

The Yarian Declaration provides no argument connecting the issue of duty to maintain the electrical system and Alpine’s advertisement on various websites. Plaintiff’s motion also lacks argument to this effect. In the section which purports to show good cause, Plaintiff’s motion only refutes the objections Alpine tendered in its discovery responses. (Mot. pgs. 7-9.) The Court does not find the issue of duty to maintain the electrical system relates to Alpine’s online advertisement. Without further argument, Plaintiffs have not shown the discovery sought will tend to prove or disprove a disputed fact at issue or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact as per Digital Music. The Court finds Plaintiffs have not shown good cause to compel the discovery responses they seek.

As such, the motion to compel further responses is DENIED.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Carmen Calusian, Calvin Tahmasebi, and Kevin Tamhasebi’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents came on regularly for hearing on April 28, 2023, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET THREE) NOS. 110-117 IS DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: April 28, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles