Preview
1 Karl P. Schlecht, Esq. (SBN 182294)
Email: kschlecht@tresslerllp.com
2 Jihoon Kim, Esq. (SBN 289780)
Email: jkim@tresslerllp.com
3 TRESSLER LLP
2 Park Plaza, Suite 1050
4 Irvine, California 92614
Telephone: (949) 336-1232
5 Fax: (949) 752-0645
6 Attorneys for Defendants,
JENNIFER RUNYON, AN INDIVIDUAL and
7 WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, AN ENTITY
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF KERN
11
Case No. BCV-23-100822
12 NILKA COOKS; AN INDIVIDUAL,
[Related to: Lead Case No. BCV-23-100672,
13 Plaintiff, BCV-23-100778, BCV-23-100849,
BCV-23-100850, BCV-23-100851,
14 v. BCV-23-100853, BCV-23-100922,
BCV-23-100996, BCV-23-101460,
15 KRYSTAL WALLER, AN INDIVIDUAL; BCV-23-101462, BCV-23-101463]
JENNIFER RUNYON, AN INDIVIDUAL;
16 PARS-15 LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED Assigned to the Hon. T. Mark Smith
LIABILITY COMPANY; WELCOME Dept. T-2 (3131 Arrow St., Bakersfield, CA)
17 HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, AN
ENTITY; AND DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME
18 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE
Defendants. OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
19 COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
AMENDED SPECIAL
20 INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM
PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND
21 REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
22 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
23 [Filed concurrently with Separate Statement,
Declaration of attorney Karl P. Schlecht and
24 [Proposed] Order]
25 DATE: April 29, 2024
TIME: 8:30 a.m.
26 DEPT.: T2
27 Verified Complaint filed: March 17, 2023
Trial: None Set
28
1
DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on April 29, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter
3
as may be heard in Department T2 of the above-entitled Court, located at 3131 Arrow St.,
4
Bakersfield, California, 93308, Defendant WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
5
(“Defendant”), will and hereby does move for an Order compelling Plaintiff NILKA COOKS
6
7 (“Plaintiff”) to provide further responses to Amended Special Interrogatories (Set One),
8 propounded by Defendant on January 29, 2024 1. Despite Defendant’s efforts to meet and confer
9 and request supplemental responses, Plaintiff fails to respond to any of the requests and fails to
10
communicate and coordinate with Defendant. Thus, Plaintiff’s responses remain deficient and
11
not in conformity with California law.
12
This Motion is made under California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300 on the
13
grounds that Plaintiff NILKA COOKS failed to provide full and complete responses to
14
15 WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’s Amended Special Interrogatories (Set
16 One) pursuant to the California Discovery Act. Defendant has made good faith attempts to
17 further meet and confer with Plaintiff NILKA COOKS pursuant to California Code of Civil
18
Procedure § 2016.040. However, the parties were unable to resolve their issues informally,
19
necessitating instant Motion.
20
///
21
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25
26
27 1
Defendant had propounded initial written discovery on January 22, 2024, however, due to an
error, Defendant served amended written discovery on January 29, 2024. See Schlecht Decl. ¶ 4-
28 5.
2
DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d), Defendant respectfully
2 requests that the Court impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff NILKA COOKS and her
3
counsel, Jacob O. Partiyeli from Law Office of Jacob O. Partiyeli in the amount of $2,000 for the
4
reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred by Defendant in bringing this Motion. (See
5
Declaration of Karl P. Schlecht [“Schlecht Decl.”], ¶¶ 11-13.)
6
Respectfully submitted.
7
DATED: April 3, 2024 TRESSLER LLP
8
9
By:
10 Karl P. Schlecht
Jihoon Kim
11
Attorneys for Defendants,
12 JENNIFER RUNYON, AN INDIVIDUAL
and WELCOME HOME PROPERTY
13 MANAGEMENT, AN ENTITY
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1 TABLE OF CONTENT
2
3
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 7
4
III. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE CODE-COMPLIANT RESPONSES TO
5 WRITTEN DISCOVERY ................................................................................................................ 9
6 IV. DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSES TO ITS
7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. ................................................................................................ 10
8 V. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PROVIDE PROPER RESPONSES TO
WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S AMENDED SPECIAL
9 INTERROGATORIES ................................................................................................................... 11
10
A. Plaintiff’s Boilerplate Objections to Written Discovery are Without Merit ..................... 11
11
1. Vague and Ambiguous .................................................................................................. 13
12
2. Overbroad and/or Burdensome ..................................................................................... 13
13
3. Attorney-Client and/or Work-Product .......................................................................... 14
14
4. Relevance ...................................................................................................................... 14
15
5. Privacy........................................................................................................................... 14
16
17 B. Plaintiff’s Evasive or Incomplete Responses to Amended Special Interrogatories .......... 15
18 VI. MONETARY SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HER
COUNSEL FOR THEIR BLATANT MISUSE OF THE DISCOVERY PROCESS ................... 18
19
VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 20
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
CASES
3
4 Best Products, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Granatelli Motorsports, Inc.)
(2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181 .................................................................................................. 10
5
6 Boston v. Penny Lane Centers, Inc.,
7 (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 936 [88 Cal.Rptr.3d 707, 713] ............................................................ 9
8 Burke v. Super. Ct.
9 (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276 ............................................................................................................... 10
10 Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Super. Ct.
11 (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12........................................................................................................ 13
12
Coriell v. Superior Court
13 (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 487........................................................................................................ 13
14
Cottini v. Enloe Medical Center
15
(2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 401 [172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 4] .................................................................. 9
16
Coy v. Super. Ct. of Contra Costa Cnty.
17
(1962) 58 Cal.2d 210 ............................................................................................................... 11
18
19 Deyo v. Kilbourne
(1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771................................................................................................ 10, 13
20
21 Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct.
22 (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245 .............................................................................................................. 11
23 Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.
24 (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 855–856, 865 P.2d 633] ..................................... 15
25 Korea Data Sys. Co. Ltd. v. Super. Ct.
26 (1997) 51 Cal. App. 4th 1513 .................................................................................................. 11
27
Manzetti v. Super. Ct.,
28
5
DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1 . (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 373 ..................................................................................................... 10
2
Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein
3 (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60........................................................................................................ 14
4
Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants
5
(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390 [55 Cal.Rptr.3d 751, 762] .......................................................... 16
6
Standon Co., Inc. v. Super. Ct.
7
(1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898...................................................................................................... 10
8
9 West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles
(1963) 56 Cal.2d 407 ............................................................................................................... 13
10
11 Williams v. Super. Ct.
12 (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 [220 Cal.Rptr.3d 472, 493, 398 P.3d 69] ............................................... 15
13
14
STATUTES
15
Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 ......................................................................................................... 15
16
Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010 ....................................................................................... 11, 16, 18, 19
17
Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.020 ......................................................................................................... 19
18
Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030 ......................................................................................................... 19
19
Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.240 ......................................................................................................... 12
20
21 Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210 ................................................................................................... 12, 15
22 Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220 ................................................................................................... 15, 16
23 Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300 ......................................................................................................... 10
24 Code. Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 .......................................................................................................... 9
25 Code. Civ. Proc., § 2030.300 ........................................................................................................ 10
26 Evid. Code § 210 ........................................................................................................................... 14
27
28
6
DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1
2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3 I. INTRODUCTION
4 Plaintiff NILKA COOKS (“Plaintiff”) is the lessee of 3400 15th Street West,
5 Apartment 91, Rosamond, California. 93560 (“Subject Property”). Plaintiff filed her verified
6 Complaint against Defendants WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (“Welcome
7 Home” or “Defendant”) AND JENNIFER RUNYON (hereinafter collectively “Defendants”).
8 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged various causes of actions, related to the conditions of the Subject
9 Property and the Defendant’s maintenance and management of the Subject Property.
10 Among the allegations in Plaintiff’s verified complaint were that the Plaintiff
11 experienced various defects at the Subject Property, and Plaintiff complained about the defects
12 to Defendant. As such, Defendant served Amended Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”) for the
13 purposes of identifying the dates of notification, the specific defects Plaintiff experienced, any
14 efforts to remediate, and the Plaintiff’s damages among other things. In response, Plaintiff has
15 provided boilerplate objections, and evasive responses.
16 Having received deficient responses to the SROGs, Defendant made an exhaustive
17 attempt to meet and confer with Plaintiff via written correspondence. Plaintiff failed to meet
18 and confer with Defendant and likewise failed to supplement their responses further for the
19 responses to be substantive, complete, and to comply with the California Discovery Act.
20 Plaintiff’s ongoing stonewalling of the discovery process cannot continue and clearly can only
21 be resolved with this Court’s intervention. Accordingly, Defendant was left with no other
22 recourse than to file the instant Motion.
23 Therefore, for the reasons set forth below, Defendant requests the Court order Plaintiff
24 to further supplement her response to Defendant’s Amended SROGs pursuant to California
25 Code of Civil Procedure (“Code Civ. Proc.,”) § 2030.300 and impose monetary sanctions
26 against Plaintiff and her counsel, Jacob O. Partiyeli of Law Office of Jacob Jacob O. Partiyeli
27 in the amount of $2,000 to Defendant for being forced to file this Motion.
28
7
DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1
II. SELECTED FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2
3 On or around March 17, 2023, Plaintiff field their verified Complaint for Damages, that
4 alleged the following causes of actions: (1) Violation of California Civil Code § 1942.4; (2)
5 Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability; (3) Private Nuisance; (4) Business and
6 Professions Code § 17,200, ET SEQ; (5) Negligence; (6) Breach of Covenant of Quiet
7 Enjoyment; (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (8) Negligence Per Se; (9) Violation
8 of Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750, ET SEQ; (10) Violation of
9 California Civil Code § 1947.12; and (10) Violation of California Civil Code § 1947.12. See
10 Declaration of Karl P. Schlecht (“Schlecht Decl.”), ¶ 2, Exhibit (“Ex.”) A.
11 On or about September 21, 2023, Defendant answered Plaintiff’s Complaint. See
12 Schlecht Decl. ¶ 3.
13 On or about January 22, 2024, Defendants served upon Plaintiff the initial sets of
14 discovery as follows: Form Interrogatories – General (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set
15 One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) propounded by Defendant Runyon;
16 Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One)
17 propounded by Defendant Welcome Home (herein collectively referred to as “Defendants’
18 Initial Written Discovery”). See Declaration of Karl P. Schlecht (“Schlecht Decl.”), ¶ 4.
19 On or about January 26, 2024, Defendants withdrew Defendants’ Initial Written
20 Discovery due to the inclusion of propounded discovery on behalf of PARS-15 LLC. Schlecht
21 Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. B. Our office does not represent PARS-15 LLC in this matter. Id.
22 On or about January 29, 2024, since Defendants’ Initial Written Discovery was
23 withdrawn from the suit as defendant, Defendants served upon Plaintiff the following amended
24 sets of discovery: Amended Form Interrogatories – General (Set One), Amended Special
25 Interrogatories (Set One), and Amended Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPD”) (Set
26 One) propounded by Defendant RUNYON; Amended Special Interrogatories (Set One), and
27 Amended Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) propounded by Defendant Welcome
28 Home (herein collectively “Defendants’ Amended Discovery Requests”). Schlecht Decl. ¶ 6, Ex.
8
DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1
C. Plaintiff’s responses were due to Defendants by March 1, 2024. Id.
2
Plaintiff served responses on or about February 15, 2024. See Schlecht Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. D.
3
On or about February 29, 2024, my office sent a detailed meet and confer letter
4
identifying the numerous deficiencies in Plaintiff’s discovery responses including, but not
5
limited to, Plaintiff’s improper general objections, improper boilerplate objections, and
6
Plaintiff’s inadequate, evasive, and non-code-compliant responses. See Schlecht Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. E.
7
To date, my office has not received any response to Defendants’ Meet and Confer Letter
8
and/or further supplemental responses to any of Defendants’ Amended Discovery Requests
9
propounded to Plaintiff. See Schlecht Decl. ¶ 9.
10
Because of Plaintiff’s incomplete and non-code-compliant responses and Plaintiff’s
11
failure to cooperate, Defendant seeks the Court’s Order requesting Plaintiff’s supplemental
12
response and imposing monetary sanctions on Plaintiff and her counsel.
13
14 III. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE CODE-COMPLIANT RESPONSES
15 TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY
16 The purpose of the discovery statutes is to assist the parties and the trier of fact in
17 ascertaining the truth; to encourage settlement by educating the parties as to the strengths of
18 their claims and defenses; to expedite and facilitate preparation and trial; to prevent delay; and
19 to safeguard against surprise. Cottini v. Enloe Medical Center (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 401
20 [172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 4]; Boston v. Penny Lane Centers, Inc., (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 936 [88
21 Cal.Rptr.3d 707, 713].
22 As a general matter, the California Civil Discovery Act entitles all relevant parties to
23 wide-ranging discovery. “Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this
24 title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the
25 subject matter involved in the pending action...” Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010. Courts do not
26 look favorably upon the use of boilerplate objections such as “vague” and “ambiguous” and
27 will not typically sustain such objections. Standon Co., Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1990) 225
28
9
DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1
Cal.App.3d 898, 903; see Manzetti v. Super. Ct. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 373, 377. A motion to
2
compel lies where the party to whom the interrogatories were directed gave responses deemed
3
improper by the propounding party; e.g., objections, or evasive or incomplete answers. See
4
Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300; see Best Products, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Granatelli Motorsports, Inc.)
5
(2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189-1190 - motion to compel proper to challenge “boilerplate”
6
responses.
7
8 IV. DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSES TO
9 ITS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.
10 A party may move for an order compelling further response to special interrogatories if
11 that party deems that an answer is evasive, incomplete, or an objection is without merit or too
12 general.” Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.
13 Interrogatories are designed to permit discovery of all facts presently known to a party
14 upon which that party predicates their claim or defense. Burke v. Super. Ct. (1969) 71 Cal.2d
15 276, 285. Each answer shall be as complete and straightforward as possible. Code Civ. Proc., §
16 2030.220. If a party lacks sufficient knowledge to fully answer, it must state so but make a
17 good faith effort to obtain the information. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220. Ignorance cannot be
18 claimed if the information can be obtained from sources under the party’s control. Deyo v.
19 Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 509.
20 Even if part of an interrogatory is objectionable, the responding party must answer what
21 they can, clearly state any objections, and justify them, especially if based on privilege or
22 protected work. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.240. Moreover, evasive responses to discovery
23 requests are impermissible. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783. A party may
24 not “provide deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit
25 questions” and “deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of supplying an evasive
26 answer.” Id.
27 In this case, as mentioned in Defendant’s Separate Statement filed concurrently
28
10
DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1
herewith, Plaintiff’s responses are riddled with objections that Plaintiff plainly copied and
2
pasted from one response to the next, and most, if not all, of these objections are irrelevant and
3
inapplicable to the requests. Furthermore, to the extent that Plaintiff provided substantive
4
answers, those responses come across as intentionally evasive and incomplete, thereby subject
5
to the present motion to compel.
6
7 V. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PROVIDE PROPER
8 RESPONSES TO WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S
9 AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
10 A. Plaintiff’s Boilerplate Objections to Written Discovery are Without Merit
11 Asserting boilerplate objections is not only meritless but also sanctionable. Korea Data
12 Sys. Co. Ltd. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 51 Cal. App. 4th 1513, 1516; Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010(e).
13 The responding party must still respond to the remainder of the interrogatory if only a part of it
14 is objectionable. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.240(a). Further, “the specific ground for the objection
15 shall be set forth clearly in the response.” Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.240(b). The burden is on the
16 responding party to justify any objections. Coy v. Super. Ct. of Contra Costa Cnty. (1962) 58
17 Cal.2d 210, 220-21; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.
18 Here, Plaintiff made the same baseless, boilerplate objection to each of 180 Amended
19 Special Interrogatories, Set One propounded by both Welcome Home and Ms. Jennifer Runyon.
20 “Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
21 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56
22 Cal. 2d 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described
23 with specificity. Objection; this request violates the attorney-client and or
24 attorney work product privileges and judicial doctrines; all in direct
25 violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
26 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court
27 (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App.
28
11
DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1
2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied within Article I, Section 1 of
2
the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior Court
3
(1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39
4
Cal.App. 4th 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770,
5
798. Objection; this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
6
discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may be shown to
7
compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.
8
v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19;
9
California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is
10
equally available to propounding party. See Alpine Mutual Water Co. v.
11
Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request is so
12
overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276
13
Cal. 2d 787, 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860.
14
Objection; this request is uncertain, ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo
15
v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783.”
16
The use of boilerplate objections falls far short of the standards articulated by the
17
California Code of Civil Procedure, which require the responding party to respond separately to
18
each interrogatory. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210. The response must contain the answer to
19
contain the information sought to be discovered, and if there is an objection, the objection is
20
made to the particular interrogatory. Id.. The objection must state clearly specific ground for
21
objection. “If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall
22
be clearly stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected
23
work product …. that claim shall be expressly asserted.” Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.240(b).
24
Here, Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Amended SROGs contain numerous
25
boilerplate objections (often without any justification and/or substantive responses). These
26
objections are asserted in various combinations all of which lack merit for the reasons explained
27
below.
28
12
DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1
1. Vague and Ambiguous
2
3 Plaintiff’s “vague and ambiguous” objection lacks merit. A party objecting to discovery
4 requests as vague and ambiguous has the burden to show such vagueness or ambiguity and, in
5 responding to discovery requests, should exercise reason and common sense to attribute ordinary
6 definitions to terms and phrases utilized in the discovery sought. “Indeed, where the question is
7 somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is
8 to provide an appropriate response.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.
9 To make the Special Interrogatories clear, Defendant referred to specific text and
10 paragraphs to Plaintiff’s verified Complaint. Plaintiff cannot claim the meaning of the text of her
11 own verified Complaint is vague and ambiguous.
12 Accordingly, such objection lacks merit.
13 2. Overbroad and/or Burdensome
14
“The objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum
15
of work required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either
16
of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is
17
incommensurate with the result sought.” West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles (1963) 56
18
Cal.2d 407, 417 (“The objection of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to
19
result in injustice.”); see also, Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d
20
12, 19 (in determining whether the burden is unjust, a weighing process is required where the
21
amount of work is so great and the utility of the information sought so minimal that it would
22
defeat the ends of justice to require the responding party to answer.) The responding party is
23
required to make more than a conclusory statement of burden or expense. Coriell v. Superior
24
Court (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 487, 492-93.
25
Here, Plaintiff has not even attempted to carry either one of her burdens, let alone both of
26
them. Rather, Plaintiff merely states conclusory objections based on some undue burden without
27
further elaboration as to the extent of the burden or the potential work involved in answering the
28
13
DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1
Requests.
2
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections based on undue burden and oppression are without
3
merit.
4
5 3. Attorney-Client and/or Work-Product
6 “If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be
7 clearly stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work
8 product under Chapter 4 [Attorney Work Product] (commencing with Section 2018.010), that
9 claim shall be expressly asserted.” Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.240.
10 Having failed to state any factual information regarding the merits of its privilege and
11 work product objections, in contravention of the plain language of Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.240,
12 Plaintiff’s objections are self-evidently deficient and constitute an abuse of the discovery
13 process.
14 Accordingly, such objection lacks merit.
15
4. Relevance
16
17 Plaintiff’s relevance objection lacks merit. Any doubts regarding relevance are generally
18 resolved in favor of allowing the discovery. Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158
19 Cal.App.4th 60, 98. ““Relevant evidence” means evidence, including evidence relevant to the
20 credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove
21 any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” Evid. Code § 210.
22 It is undisputed that all the Defendant’s discovery requests are directly related to the case
23 at hand. Specifically, most, if not all, of the Defendant’s discovery requests involve information
24 directly related to the Plaintiff’s verified Complaint.
25 As such, Plaintiff’s relevance objections lack merit.
26
5. Privacy
27
28 Plaintiff’s Privacy Objections lacks merit. When a discovery request seeks information
14
DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1
implicating the constitutional right of privacy, to order discovery simply upon a showing that the
2
Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 test for relevance has been met is an abuse of discretion. Rather,
3
whenever discovery of facially private information is sought, the party seeking discovery must
4
demonstrate a “compelling state interest” or “compelling need.” Courts must place the burden on
5
the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective
6
invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party
7
identifies. What suffices to justify an invasion will vary according to the context. Only obvious
8
invasions of interests fundamental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling
9
interest, and to the extent prior cases require a party seeking discovery of private information to
10
always establish a compelling interest or compelling need, without regard to the other
11
considerations articulated in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35 [26
12
Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 855–856, 865 P.2d 633, 654], they are disapproved. Williams v. Super. Ct.
13
(2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 [220 Cal.Rptr.3d 472, 493, 398 P.3d 69].
14
Here most, if not all, discovery requests are directly related to the Plaintiff’s verified
15
Complaint. Defendant has a “compelling need” to conduct discovery on Plaintiff’s verified
16
allegations. Therefore, it is the Plaintiff’s burden to establish the extent and seriousness of the
17
prospective invasion. Plaintiff has not met that burden.
18
As such, Plaintiff’s privacy objections lack merit.
19
20 B. Plaintiff’s Evasive or Incomplete Responses to Amended Special Interrogatories
21 If there is no basis on which the responding party can move for a protective order, that
22 party must then respond to each interrogatory separately, in writing and under oath. Responses
23 may include answers containing the information sought, or objections to particular
24 interrogatories. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210.
25 The responding party must make each answer in the response as complete and
26 straightforward as the information reasonably available to him or her permits. Code Civ. Proc.,
27 § 2030.220. Evasive, incomplete, or unresponsive answers are subject to sanctions. Code Civ.
28
15
DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1
Proc., § 2023.010. If the responding party cannot answer an interrogatory completely, she must
2
answer it to the extent possible. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(b). If the responding party does not
3
have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, he or she must so state,
4
but must make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other
5
natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the
6
propounding party. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(c).
7
A responding party generally may not respond to interrogatories just by asserting its
8
“inability to respond.” Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants
9
(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 406 [55 Cal.Rptr.3d 751, 762]. Here, Plaintiff responded to several
10
special interrogatories with the exact same language, evading their obligation to respond.
11
Plaintiff’s Response to Welcome Home’s SORGS, No. 15, No. 22, No. 23, No. 33, No. 43, No.
12
47, No. 54, No. 59, No. 61, No. 72, No. 74, No. 77, No. 80, No. 88, No. 90, No. 97, No. 99, No.
13
136, and No. 148 all contain the exact same language found below:
14
“After a good faith effort to ascertain the dates, the Responding Party
15
contends that the dates are not readily available, nor ascertainable at the present
16
time, and given the penalty of perjury penalty, the Responding Party will not
17
guess dates for which they have no concrete backing or support thereof.
18
Discovery is on-going, and future litigation and facts will confirm these dates.
19
The Responding Party is not waiving its rights to amend at a future time.” See
20
Schlecht Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. D.3.
21
Most if not all of the above identified SROG requests are requests directly related to
22
verified allegations found in Plaintiff’s verified Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s evasive and
23
incomplete responses are not code-compliant and require Plaintiff to provide complete and
24
straight forward responses.
25
Next, Plaintiff’s evasive and misleading response to SROG No. 62, “The Responding
26
Party emphasizes that she is not a certified or professional electrical technician, and as such,
27
refrains from attempting to remedy the dysfunctional electrical systems within the property” is a
28
16
DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1
complete evasion to answer the question related to Plaintiff’s attempts to remediate the
2
DYSFUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS. In Plaintiff’s verified Complaint, Plaintiff
3
specifically states, efforts to remediate the DYSFUCNTIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS. See
4
Schlecht Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A at ¶ 28 (“which force the Plaintiff to repeatedly flip the breaker to
5
reinstall electrical supply”). As such, it is clear that Plaintiff’s response to SROG No. 62 is not a
6
complete and straightforward response to request, but instead an attempt to avoid responding to
7
the request.
8
Next, Plaintiff’s incomplete response to SROG No. 71, “The Responding Party contends
9
that despite making repeated complaints about the deficient bathroom ventilation, the attempts to
10
address the issue have been inadequate, and their concerns have been consistently met with
11
complete disregard and negligence” (Schlecht Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. C.3), is incomplete as it does not
12
identify who promised to make repairs and when, how, to whom, and when Plaintiff made
13
repeated complaints. As such, Plaintiff has provided an incomplete response.
14
Next, Plaintiff’s incomplete and evasive responses to SROG Nos. 14, 25, 28, 32, 79, 84,
15
85, 86, 92, 93, 94, 95, 100, 101, 105, 110, 115, 116, 117, 119, 125, 126, 127, 128, 135, 137, 138,
16
147, and 149 Id., “Upon information and belief...” (emphasis added.) is an incomplete and
17
evasive response considering the interrogatory requests for information directly related to
18
Plaintiff’s allegations in their verified Complaint. Plaintiff has provided an incomplete and
19
evasive response by placing a qualifier in its response, but no qualifiers exist in corresponding
20
paragraphs in the verified Complaint. See generally, Schlecht Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.
21
Next, Plaintiff’s evasive response to SROG Nos. 81-83, “Upon information and belief,
22
the Responding Party does not have the documents or information requested. Discovery is
23
ongoing; therefore, the Responding Party is not waiving its right to amend its answer at a future
24
time” (see Schlecht Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. C.3), requests information directly relating to Plaintiff’s
25
efforts to notify law enforcement of transient and trespassers. Plaintiff’s response is nonsensical
26
in that either Plaintiff contacted law enforcement or did not. Defendant is unclear how further
27
discovery shall change this response. As such, it is clear that Plaintiff is avoiding and/or evading
28
17
DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1
their responsibilities to respond to a simple interrogatory.
2
Next, Plaintiff’s objections only to SROG No. 154, regarding the Identity of the Medical
3
Providers during Plaintiff’s tenancy is an evasive response/objection. Schlecht Decl. ¶ 7, Ex.
4
D.3. See discussion supra, “Boilerplate Objections.” Here, Plaintiff’s response to SROG No.
5
154 is merely boilerplate objections. As such, Plaintiff’s improper objections only to SROG No.
6
154 is inappropriate.
7
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has failed to provide code-compliant responses to
8
written discovery and is in violation of the California Civil Discovery Act.
9
10 VI. MONETARY SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE AGAINST PLAINTIFF
11 AND HER COUNSEL FOR THEIR BLATANT MISUSE OF THE
12 DISCOVERY PROCESS
13 California courts are entitled to impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process.
14 Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, et seq. “Misuses of the discovery process” include, but are not
15 limited to:
16
…
17
(e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery.
18
(f) Making an evasive response to discovery.
19
…
20
(h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully, and without substantial justification, a motion to
21
compel or limit discovery.
22
(i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or
23
attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute
24
concerning discovery…
25
26 Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.
27 A party’s making an evasive response to discovery and providing unjustified,
28
18
DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1
unmeritorious, boilerplate objections in response to discovery constitutes a misuse of the
2
discovery process and may be subject to sanctions. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010(e),
3
2023.010(f), 2023.030. However, the court shall impose a monetary sanction order on any
4
party and its attorney who fails to confer as required by statute, to pay reasonable expenses,
5
including attorney’s fees, as a result of that conduct; this is notwithstanding the outcome of the
6
particular motion. Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.020.
7
As set forth in the Separate Statement concurrently herewith, Plaintiff’s ongoing refusal
8
to comply with their discovery obligations by maintaining improper and unmeritorious
9
objections and refusing to provide straightforward and complete responses warrants the
10
imposition of sanctions.
11
Similarly, Plaintiff’s ongoing refusal to meet and confer in good faith regarding their
12
deficient responses warrants sanctions. After receiving Defendant’s February 29, 2024, meet
13
and confer letter, Plaintiff failed to timely provide supplemental responses or respond to
14
Defendant’s meet and confer letter. See Schlecht Decl. ¶¶ 8-9. Plaintiff’s silence is despite
15
Defendant’s information in the meet and confer letter that it would be proceeding with Motions
16
to Compel.
17
Clearly, Plaintiff never intended to provide full and complete, substantive responses to
18
discovery, never met and conferred with Defendants in good faith despite Defense counsel’s
19
efforts to do so, and wholly intended to drive up costs in this matter by forcing Defendant to
20
proceed with this Motion to Compel. Plaintiff undoubtedly will continue to refuse to provide
21
proper discovery responses without Court intervention.
22
As such, Defendant had no choice but to file the present Motion to Compel and seek
23
necessary sanctions in connection therewith. Based on the facts set out above, monetary
24
sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel, Jacob O. Partiyeli of Law Office of Jacob O.
25
Partiyeli, are both warranted and mandatory under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(d), 2023.010,
26
2023.020, 2023.030. Defendants thus respectfully request the Court award monetary sanctions
27
against Plaintiff and their counsel in the amount of $2,000 the cost to Defendant in bringing
28
19
DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Preview
1 Karl P. Schlecht, Esq. (SBN 182294) Email: kschlecht@tresslerllp.com 2 Jihoon Kim, Esq. (SBN 289780) Email: jkim@tresslerllp.com 3 TRESSLER LLP 2 Park Plaza, Suite 1050 4 Irvine, California 92614 Telephone: (949) 336-1232 5 Fax: (949) 752-0645 6 Attorneys for Defendants, JENNIFER RUNYON, AN INDIVIDUAL and 7 WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, AN ENTITY 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF KERN 11 Case No. BCV-23-100822 12 NILKA COOKS; AN INDIVIDUAL, [Related to: Lead Case No. BCV-23-100672, 13 Plaintiff, BCV-23-100778, BCV-23-100849, BCV-23-100850, BCV-23-100851, 14 v. BCV-23-100853, BCV-23-100922, BCV-23-100996, BCV-23-101460, 15 KRYSTAL WALLER, AN INDIVIDUAL; BCV-23-101462, BCV-23-101463] JENNIFER RUNYON, AN INDIVIDUAL; 16 PARS-15 LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED Assigned to the Hon. T. Mark Smith LIABILITY COMPANY; WELCOME Dept. T-2 (3131 Arrow St., Bakersfield, CA) 17 HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, AN ENTITY; AND DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME 18 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE Defendants. OF MOTION AND MOTION TO 19 COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL 20 INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND 21 REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 22 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 23 [Filed concurrently with Separate Statement, Declaration of attorney Karl P. Schlecht and 24 [Proposed] Order] 25 DATE: April 29, 2024 TIME: 8:30 a.m. 26 DEPT.: T2 27 Verified Complaint filed: March 17, 2023 Trial: None Set 28 1 DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on April 29, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter 3 as may be heard in Department T2 of the above-entitled Court, located at 3131 Arrow St., 4 Bakersfield, California, 93308, Defendant WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 5 (“Defendant”), will and hereby does move for an Order compelling Plaintiff NILKA COOKS 6 7 (“Plaintiff”) to provide further responses to Amended Special Interrogatories (Set One), 8 propounded by Defendant on January 29, 2024 1. Despite Defendant’s efforts to meet and confer 9 and request supplemental responses, Plaintiff fails to respond to any of the requests and fails to 10 communicate and coordinate with Defendant. Thus, Plaintiff’s responses remain deficient and 11 not in conformity with California law. 12 This Motion is made under California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300 on the 13 grounds that Plaintiff NILKA COOKS failed to provide full and complete responses to 14 15 WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’s Amended Special Interrogatories (Set 16 One) pursuant to the California Discovery Act. Defendant has made good faith attempts to 17 further meet and confer with Plaintiff NILKA COOKS pursuant to California Code of Civil 18 Procedure § 2016.040. However, the parties were unable to resolve their issues informally, 19 necessitating instant Motion. 20 /// 21 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 26 27 1 Defendant had propounded initial written discovery on January 22, 2024, however, due to an error, Defendant served amended written discovery on January 29, 2024. See Schlecht Decl. ¶ 4- 28 5. 2 DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d), Defendant respectfully 2 requests that the Court impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff NILKA COOKS and her 3 counsel, Jacob O. Partiyeli from Law Office of Jacob O. Partiyeli in the amount of $2,000 for the 4 reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred by Defendant in bringing this Motion. (See 5 Declaration of Karl P. Schlecht [“Schlecht Decl.”], ¶¶ 11-13.) 6 Respectfully submitted. 7 DATED: April 3, 2024 TRESSLER LLP 8 9 By: 10 Karl P. Schlecht Jihoon Kim 11 Attorneys for Defendants, 12 JENNIFER RUNYON, AN INDIVIDUAL and WELCOME HOME PROPERTY 13 MANAGEMENT, AN ENTITY 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 TABLE OF CONTENT 2 3 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 7 4 III. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE CODE-COMPLIANT RESPONSES TO 5 WRITTEN DISCOVERY ................................................................................................................ 9 6 IV. DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSES TO ITS 7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. ................................................................................................ 10 8 V. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PROVIDE PROPER RESPONSES TO WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S AMENDED SPECIAL 9 INTERROGATORIES ................................................................................................................... 11 10 A. Plaintiff’s Boilerplate Objections to Written Discovery are Without Merit ..................... 11 11 1. Vague and Ambiguous .................................................................................................. 13 12 2. Overbroad and/or Burdensome ..................................................................................... 13 13 3. Attorney-Client and/or Work-Product .......................................................................... 14 14 4. Relevance ...................................................................................................................... 14 15 5. Privacy........................................................................................................................... 14 16 17 B. Plaintiff’s Evasive or Incomplete Responses to Amended Special Interrogatories .......... 15 18 VI. MONETARY SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HER COUNSEL FOR THEIR BLATANT MISUSE OF THE DISCOVERY PROCESS ................... 18 19 VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 20 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 CASES 3 4 Best Products, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Granatelli Motorsports, Inc.) (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181 .................................................................................................. 10 5 6 Boston v. Penny Lane Centers, Inc., 7 (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 936 [88 Cal.Rptr.3d 707, 713] ............................................................ 9 8 Burke v. Super. Ct. 9 (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276 ............................................................................................................... 10 10 Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Super. Ct. 11 (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12........................................................................................................ 13 12 Coriell v. Superior Court 13 (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 487........................................................................................................ 13 14 Cottini v. Enloe Medical Center 15 (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 401 [172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 4] .................................................................. 9 16 Coy v. Super. Ct. of Contra Costa Cnty. 17 (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210 ............................................................................................................... 11 18 19 Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771................................................................................................ 10, 13 20 21 Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. 22 (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245 .............................................................................................................. 11 23 Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. 24 (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 855–856, 865 P.2d 633] ..................................... 15 25 Korea Data Sys. Co. Ltd. v. Super. Ct. 26 (1997) 51 Cal. App. 4th 1513 .................................................................................................. 11 27 Manzetti v. Super. Ct., 28 5 DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 . (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 373 ..................................................................................................... 10 2 Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein 3 (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60........................................................................................................ 14 4 Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants 5 (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390 [55 Cal.Rptr.3d 751, 762] .......................................................... 16 6 Standon Co., Inc. v. Super. Ct. 7 (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898...................................................................................................... 10 8 9 West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles (1963) 56 Cal.2d 407 ............................................................................................................... 13 10 11 Williams v. Super. Ct. 12 (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 [220 Cal.Rptr.3d 472, 493, 398 P.3d 69] ............................................... 15 13 14 STATUTES 15 Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 ......................................................................................................... 15 16 Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010 ....................................................................................... 11, 16, 18, 19 17 Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.020 ......................................................................................................... 19 18 Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030 ......................................................................................................... 19 19 Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.240 ......................................................................................................... 12 20 21 Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210 ................................................................................................... 12, 15 22 Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220 ................................................................................................... 15, 16 23 Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300 ......................................................................................................... 10 24 Code. Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 .......................................................................................................... 9 25 Code. Civ. Proc., § 2030.300 ........................................................................................................ 10 26 Evid. Code § 210 ........................................................................................................................... 14 27 28 6 DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 3 I. INTRODUCTION 4 Plaintiff NILKA COOKS (“Plaintiff”) is the lessee of 3400 15th Street West, 5 Apartment 91, Rosamond, California. 93560 (“Subject Property”). Plaintiff filed her verified 6 Complaint against Defendants WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (“Welcome 7 Home” or “Defendant”) AND JENNIFER RUNYON (hereinafter collectively “Defendants”). 8 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged various causes of actions, related to the conditions of the Subject 9 Property and the Defendant’s maintenance and management of the Subject Property. 10 Among the allegations in Plaintiff’s verified complaint were that the Plaintiff 11 experienced various defects at the Subject Property, and Plaintiff complained about the defects 12 to Defendant. As such, Defendant served Amended Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”) for the 13 purposes of identifying the dates of notification, the specific defects Plaintiff experienced, any 14 efforts to remediate, and the Plaintiff’s damages among other things. In response, Plaintiff has 15 provided boilerplate objections, and evasive responses. 16 Having received deficient responses to the SROGs, Defendant made an exhaustive 17 attempt to meet and confer with Plaintiff via written correspondence. Plaintiff failed to meet 18 and confer with Defendant and likewise failed to supplement their responses further for the 19 responses to be substantive, complete, and to comply with the California Discovery Act. 20 Plaintiff’s ongoing stonewalling of the discovery process cannot continue and clearly can only 21 be resolved with this Court’s intervention. Accordingly, Defendant was left with no other 22 recourse than to file the instant Motion. 23 Therefore, for the reasons set forth below, Defendant requests the Court order Plaintiff 24 to further supplement her response to Defendant’s Amended SROGs pursuant to California 25 Code of Civil Procedure (“Code Civ. Proc.,”) § 2030.300 and impose monetary sanctions 26 against Plaintiff and her counsel, Jacob O. Partiyeli of Law Office of Jacob Jacob O. Partiyeli 27 in the amount of $2,000 to Defendant for being forced to file this Motion. 28 7 DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 II. SELECTED FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 3 On or around March 17, 2023, Plaintiff field their verified Complaint for Damages, that 4 alleged the following causes of actions: (1) Violation of California Civil Code § 1942.4; (2) 5 Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability; (3) Private Nuisance; (4) Business and 6 Professions Code § 17,200, ET SEQ; (5) Negligence; (6) Breach of Covenant of Quiet 7 Enjoyment; (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (8) Negligence Per Se; (9) Violation 8 of Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750, ET SEQ; (10) Violation of 9 California Civil Code § 1947.12; and (10) Violation of California Civil Code § 1947.12. See 10 Declaration of Karl P. Schlecht (“Schlecht Decl.”), ¶ 2, Exhibit (“Ex.”) A. 11 On or about September 21, 2023, Defendant answered Plaintiff’s Complaint. See 12 Schlecht Decl. ¶ 3. 13 On or about January 22, 2024, Defendants served upon Plaintiff the initial sets of 14 discovery as follows: Form Interrogatories – General (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set 15 One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) propounded by Defendant Runyon; 16 Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) 17 propounded by Defendant Welcome Home (herein collectively referred to as “Defendants’ 18 Initial Written Discovery”). See Declaration of Karl P. Schlecht (“Schlecht Decl.”), ¶ 4. 19 On or about January 26, 2024, Defendants withdrew Defendants’ Initial Written 20 Discovery due to the inclusion of propounded discovery on behalf of PARS-15 LLC. Schlecht 21 Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. B. Our office does not represent PARS-15 LLC in this matter. Id. 22 On or about January 29, 2024, since Defendants’ Initial Written Discovery was 23 withdrawn from the suit as defendant, Defendants served upon Plaintiff the following amended 24 sets of discovery: Amended Form Interrogatories – General (Set One), Amended Special 25 Interrogatories (Set One), and Amended Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPD”) (Set 26 One) propounded by Defendant RUNYON; Amended Special Interrogatories (Set One), and 27 Amended Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) propounded by Defendant Welcome 28 Home (herein collectively “Defendants’ Amended Discovery Requests”). Schlecht Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 8 DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 C. Plaintiff’s responses were due to Defendants by March 1, 2024. Id. 2 Plaintiff served responses on or about February 15, 2024. See Schlecht Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. D. 3 On or about February 29, 2024, my office sent a detailed meet and confer letter 4 identifying the numerous deficiencies in Plaintiff’s discovery responses including, but not 5 limited to, Plaintiff’s improper general objections, improper boilerplate objections, and 6 Plaintiff’s inadequate, evasive, and non-code-compliant responses. See Schlecht Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. E. 7 To date, my office has not received any response to Defendants’ Meet and Confer Letter 8 and/or further supplemental responses to any of Defendants’ Amended Discovery Requests 9 propounded to Plaintiff. See Schlecht Decl. ¶ 9. 10 Because of Plaintiff’s incomplete and non-code-compliant responses and Plaintiff’s 11 failure to cooperate, Defendant seeks the Court’s Order requesting Plaintiff’s supplemental 12 response and imposing monetary sanctions on Plaintiff and her counsel. 13 14 III. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE CODE-COMPLIANT RESPONSES 15 TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY 16 The purpose of the discovery statutes is to assist the parties and the trier of fact in 17 ascertaining the truth; to encourage settlement by educating the parties as to the strengths of 18 their claims and defenses; to expedite and facilitate preparation and trial; to prevent delay; and 19 to safeguard against surprise. Cottini v. Enloe Medical Center (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 401 20 [172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 4]; Boston v. Penny Lane Centers, Inc., (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 936 [88 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 707, 713]. 22 As a general matter, the California Civil Discovery Act entitles all relevant parties to 23 wide-ranging discovery. “Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this 24 title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the 25 subject matter involved in the pending action...” Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010. Courts do not 26 look favorably upon the use of boilerplate objections such as “vague” and “ambiguous” and 27 will not typically sustain such objections. Standon Co., Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1990) 225 28 9 DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 Cal.App.3d 898, 903; see Manzetti v. Super. Ct. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 373, 377. A motion to 2 compel lies where the party to whom the interrogatories were directed gave responses deemed 3 improper by the propounding party; e.g., objections, or evasive or incomplete answers. See 4 Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300; see Best Products, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Granatelli Motorsports, Inc.) 5 (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189-1190 - motion to compel proper to challenge “boilerplate” 6 responses. 7 8 IV. DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSES TO 9 ITS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. 10 A party may move for an order compelling further response to special interrogatories if 11 that party deems that an answer is evasive, incomplete, or an objection is without merit or too 12 general.” Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300. 13 Interrogatories are designed to permit discovery of all facts presently known to a party 14 upon which that party predicates their claim or defense. Burke v. Super. Ct. (1969) 71 Cal.2d 15 276, 285. Each answer shall be as complete and straightforward as possible. Code Civ. Proc., § 16 2030.220. If a party lacks sufficient knowledge to fully answer, it must state so but make a 17 good faith effort to obtain the information. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220. Ignorance cannot be 18 claimed if the information can be obtained from sources under the party’s control. Deyo v. 19 Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 509. 20 Even if part of an interrogatory is objectionable, the responding party must answer what 21 they can, clearly state any objections, and justify them, especially if based on privilege or 22 protected work. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.240. Moreover, evasive responses to discovery 23 requests are impermissible. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783. A party may 24 not “provide deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit 25 questions” and “deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of supplying an evasive 26 answer.” Id. 27 In this case, as mentioned in Defendant’s Separate Statement filed concurrently 28 10 DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 herewith, Plaintiff’s responses are riddled with objections that Plaintiff plainly copied and 2 pasted from one response to the next, and most, if not all, of these objections are irrelevant and 3 inapplicable to the requests. Furthermore, to the extent that Plaintiff provided substantive 4 answers, those responses come across as intentionally evasive and incomplete, thereby subject 5 to the present motion to compel. 6 7 V. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PROVIDE PROPER 8 RESPONSES TO WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S 9 AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 10 A. Plaintiff’s Boilerplate Objections to Written Discovery are Without Merit 11 Asserting boilerplate objections is not only meritless but also sanctionable. Korea Data 12 Sys. Co. Ltd. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 51 Cal. App. 4th 1513, 1516; Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010(e). 13 The responding party must still respond to the remainder of the interrogatory if only a part of it 14 is objectionable. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.240(a). Further, “the specific ground for the objection 15 shall be set forth clearly in the response.” Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.240(b). The burden is on the 16 responding party to justify any objections. Coy v. Super. Ct. of Contra Costa Cnty. (1962) 58 17 Cal.2d 210, 220-21; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255. 18 Here, Plaintiff made the same baseless, boilerplate objection to each of 180 Amended 19 Special Interrogatories, Set One propounded by both Welcome Home and Ms. Jennifer Runyon. 20 “Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 21 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 22 Cal. 2d 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described 23 with specificity. Objection; this request violates the attorney-client and or 24 attorney work product privileges and judicial doctrines; all in direct 25 violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and § 26 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court 27 (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 28 11 DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied within Article I, Section 1 of 2 the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior Court 3 (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 4 Cal.App. 4th 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 5 798. Objection; this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 6 discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may be shown to 7 compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. 8 v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; 9 California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is 10 equally available to propounding party. See Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. 11 Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request is so 12 overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 13 Cal. 2d 787, 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. 14 Objection; this request is uncertain, ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo 15 v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783.” 16 The use of boilerplate objections falls far short of the standards articulated by the 17 California Code of Civil Procedure, which require the responding party to respond separately to 18 each interrogatory. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210. The response must contain the answer to 19 contain the information sought to be discovered, and if there is an objection, the objection is 20 made to the particular interrogatory. Id.. The objection must state clearly specific ground for 21 objection. “If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall 22 be clearly stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected 23 work product …. that claim shall be expressly asserted.” Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.240(b). 24 Here, Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Amended SROGs contain numerous 25 boilerplate objections (often without any justification and/or substantive responses). These 26 objections are asserted in various combinations all of which lack merit for the reasons explained 27 below. 28 12 DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 1. Vague and Ambiguous 2 3 Plaintiff’s “vague and ambiguous” objection lacks merit. A party objecting to discovery 4 requests as vague and ambiguous has the burden to show such vagueness or ambiguity and, in 5 responding to discovery requests, should exercise reason and common sense to attribute ordinary 6 definitions to terms and phrases utilized in the discovery sought. “Indeed, where the question is 7 somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is 8 to provide an appropriate response.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783. 9 To make the Special Interrogatories clear, Defendant referred to specific text and 10 paragraphs to Plaintiff’s verified Complaint. Plaintiff cannot claim the meaning of the text of her 11 own verified Complaint is vague and ambiguous. 12 Accordingly, such objection lacks merit. 13 2. Overbroad and/or Burdensome 14 “The objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum 15 of work required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either 16 of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is 17 incommensurate with the result sought.” West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles (1963) 56 18 Cal.2d 407, 417 (“The objection of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to 19 result in injustice.”); see also, Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 20 12, 19 (in determining whether the burden is unjust, a weighing process is required where the 21 amount of work is so great and the utility of the information sought so minimal that it would 22 defeat the ends of justice to require the responding party to answer.) The responding party is 23 required to make more than a conclusory statement of burden or expense. Coriell v. Superior 24 Court (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 487, 492-93. 25 Here, Plaintiff has not even attempted to carry either one of her burdens, let alone both of 26 them. Rather, Plaintiff merely states conclusory objections based on some undue burden without 27 further elaboration as to the extent of the burden or the potential work involved in answering the 28 13 DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 Requests. 2 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections based on undue burden and oppression are without 3 merit. 4 5 3. Attorney-Client and/or Work-Product 6 “If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be 7 clearly stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work 8 product under Chapter 4 [Attorney Work Product] (commencing with Section 2018.010), that 9 claim shall be expressly asserted.” Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.240. 10 Having failed to state any factual information regarding the merits of its privilege and 11 work product objections, in contravention of the plain language of Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.240, 12 Plaintiff’s objections are self-evidently deficient and constitute an abuse of the discovery 13 process. 14 Accordingly, such objection lacks merit. 15 4. Relevance 16 17 Plaintiff’s relevance objection lacks merit. Any doubts regarding relevance are generally 18 resolved in favor of allowing the discovery. Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 19 Cal.App.4th 60, 98. ““Relevant evidence” means evidence, including evidence relevant to the 20 credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove 21 any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” Evid. Code § 210. 22 It is undisputed that all the Defendant’s discovery requests are directly related to the case 23 at hand. Specifically, most, if not all, of the Defendant’s discovery requests involve information 24 directly related to the Plaintiff’s verified Complaint. 25 As such, Plaintiff’s relevance objections lack merit. 26 5. Privacy 27 28 Plaintiff’s Privacy Objections lacks merit. When a discovery request seeks information 14 DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 implicating the constitutional right of privacy, to order discovery simply upon a showing that the 2 Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 test for relevance has been met is an abuse of discretion. Rather, 3 whenever discovery of facially private information is sought, the party seeking discovery must 4 demonstrate a “compelling state interest” or “compelling need.” Courts must place the burden on 5 the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective 6 invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party 7 identifies. What suffices to justify an invasion will vary according to the context. Only obvious 8 invasions of interests fundamental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling 9 interest, and to the extent prior cases require a party seeking discovery of private information to 10 always establish a compelling interest or compelling need, without regard to the other 11 considerations articulated in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35 [26 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 855–856, 865 P.2d 633, 654], they are disapproved. Williams v. Super. Ct. 13 (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 [220 Cal.Rptr.3d 472, 493, 398 P.3d 69]. 14 Here most, if not all, discovery requests are directly related to the Plaintiff’s verified 15 Complaint. Defendant has a “compelling need” to conduct discovery on Plaintiff’s verified 16 allegations. Therefore, it is the Plaintiff’s burden to establish the extent and seriousness of the 17 prospective invasion. Plaintiff has not met that burden. 18 As such, Plaintiff’s privacy objections lack merit. 19 20 B. Plaintiff’s Evasive or Incomplete Responses to Amended Special Interrogatories 21 If there is no basis on which the responding party can move for a protective order, that 22 party must then respond to each interrogatory separately, in writing and under oath. Responses 23 may include answers containing the information sought, or objections to particular 24 interrogatories. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210. 25 The responding party must make each answer in the response as complete and 26 straightforward as the information reasonably available to him or her permits. Code Civ. Proc., 27 § 2030.220. Evasive, incomplete, or unresponsive answers are subject to sanctions. Code Civ. 28 15 DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 Proc., § 2023.010. If the responding party cannot answer an interrogatory completely, she must 2 answer it to the extent possible. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(b). If the responding party does not 3 have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, he or she must so state, 4 but must make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other 5 natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the 6 propounding party. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(c). 7 A responding party generally may not respond to interrogatories just by asserting its 8 “inability to respond.” Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants 9 (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 406 [55 Cal.Rptr.3d 751, 762]. Here, Plaintiff responded to several 10 special interrogatories with the exact same language, evading their obligation to respond. 11 Plaintiff’s Response to Welcome Home’s SORGS, No. 15, No. 22, No. 23, No. 33, No. 43, No. 12 47, No. 54, No. 59, No. 61, No. 72, No. 74, No. 77, No. 80, No. 88, No. 90, No. 97, No. 99, No. 13 136, and No. 148 all contain the exact same language found below: 14 “After a good faith effort to ascertain the dates, the Responding Party 15 contends that the dates are not readily available, nor ascertainable at the present 16 time, and given the penalty of perjury penalty, the Responding Party will not 17 guess dates for which they have no concrete backing or support thereof. 18 Discovery is on-going, and future litigation and facts will confirm these dates. 19 The Responding Party is not waiving its rights to amend at a future time.” See 20 Schlecht Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. D.3. 21 Most if not all of the above identified SROG requests are requests directly related to 22 verified allegations found in Plaintiff’s verified Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s evasive and 23 incomplete responses are not code-compliant and require Plaintiff to provide complete and 24 straight forward responses. 25 Next, Plaintiff’s evasive and misleading response to SROG No. 62, “The Responding 26 Party emphasizes that she is not a certified or professional electrical technician, and as such, 27 refrains from attempting to remedy the dysfunctional electrical systems within the property” is a 28 16 DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 complete evasion to answer the question related to Plaintiff’s attempts to remediate the 2 DYSFUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS. In Plaintiff’s verified Complaint, Plaintiff 3 specifically states, efforts to remediate the DYSFUCNTIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS. See 4 Schlecht Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A at ¶ 28 (“which force the Plaintiff to repeatedly flip the breaker to 5 reinstall electrical supply”). As such, it is clear that Plaintiff’s response to SROG No. 62 is not a 6 complete and straightforward response to request, but instead an attempt to avoid responding to 7 the request. 8 Next, Plaintiff’s incomplete response to SROG No. 71, “The Responding Party contends 9 that despite making repeated complaints about the deficient bathroom ventilation, the attempts to 10 address the issue have been inadequate, and their concerns have been consistently met with 11 complete disregard and negligence” (Schlecht Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. C.3), is incomplete as it does not 12 identify who promised to make repairs and when, how, to whom, and when Plaintiff made 13 repeated complaints. As such, Plaintiff has provided an incomplete response. 14 Next, Plaintiff’s incomplete and evasive responses to SROG Nos. 14, 25, 28, 32, 79, 84, 15 85, 86, 92, 93, 94, 95, 100, 101, 105, 110, 115, 116, 117, 119, 125, 126, 127, 128, 135, 137, 138, 16 147, and 149 Id., “Upon information and belief...” (emphasis added.) is an incomplete and 17 evasive response considering the interrogatory requests for information directly related to 18 Plaintiff’s allegations in their verified Complaint. Plaintiff has provided an incomplete and 19 evasive response by placing a qualifier in its response, but no qualifiers exist in corresponding 20 paragraphs in the verified Complaint. See generally, Schlecht Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A. 21 Next, Plaintiff’s evasive response to SROG Nos. 81-83, “Upon information and belief, 22 the Responding Party does not have the documents or information requested. Discovery is 23 ongoing; therefore, the Responding Party is not waiving its right to amend its answer at a future 24 time” (see Schlecht Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. C.3), requests information directly relating to Plaintiff’s 25 efforts to notify law enforcement of transient and trespassers. Plaintiff’s response is nonsensical 26 in that either Plaintiff contacted law enforcement or did not. Defendant is unclear how further 27 discovery shall change this response. As such, it is clear that Plaintiff is avoiding and/or evading 28 17 DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 their responsibilities to respond to a simple interrogatory. 2 Next, Plaintiff’s objections only to SROG No. 154, regarding the Identity of the Medical 3 Providers during Plaintiff’s tenancy is an evasive response/objection. Schlecht Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 4 D.3. See discussion supra, “Boilerplate Objections.” Here, Plaintiff’s response to SROG No. 5 154 is merely boilerplate objections. As such, Plaintiff’s improper objections only to SROG No. 6 154 is inappropriate. 7 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has failed to provide code-compliant responses to 8 written discovery and is in violation of the California Civil Discovery Act. 9 10 VI. MONETARY SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE AGAINST PLAINTIFF 11 AND HER COUNSEL FOR THEIR BLATANT MISUSE OF THE 12 DISCOVERY PROCESS 13 California courts are entitled to impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process. 14 Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, et seq. “Misuses of the discovery process” include, but are not 15 limited to: 16 … 17 (e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery. 18 (f) Making an evasive response to discovery. 19 … 20 (h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully, and without substantial justification, a motion to 21 compel or limit discovery. 22 (i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or 23 attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute 24 concerning discovery… 25 26 Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010. 27 A party’s making an evasive response to discovery and providing unjustified, 28 18 DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 unmeritorious, boilerplate objections in response to discovery constitutes a misuse of the 2 discovery process and may be subject to sanctions. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010(e), 3 2023.010(f), 2023.030. However, the court shall impose a monetary sanction order on any 4 party and its attorney who fails to confer as required by statute, to pay reasonable expenses, 5 including attorney’s fees, as a result of that conduct; this is notwithstanding the outcome of the 6 particular motion. Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.020. 7 As set forth in the Separate Statement concurrently herewith, Plaintiff’s ongoing refusal 8 to comply with their discovery obligations by maintaining improper and unmeritorious 9 objections and refusing to provide straightforward and complete responses warrants the 10 imposition of sanctions. 11 Similarly, Plaintiff’s ongoing refusal to meet and confer in good faith regarding their 12 deficient responses warrants sanctions. After receiving Defendant’s February 29, 2024, meet 13 and confer letter, Plaintiff failed to timely provide supplemental responses or respond to 14 Defendant’s meet and confer letter. See Schlecht Decl. ¶¶ 8-9. Plaintiff’s silence is despite 15 Defendant’s information in the meet and confer letter that it would be proceeding with Motions 16 to Compel. 17 Clearly, Plaintiff never intended to provide full and complete, substantive responses to 18 discovery, never met and conferred with Defendants in good faith despite Defense counsel’s 19 efforts to do so, and wholly intended to drive up costs in this matter by forcing Defendant to 20 proceed with this Motion to Compel. Plaintiff undoubtedly will continue to refuse to provide 21 proper discovery responses without Court intervention. 22 As such, Defendant had no choice but to file the present Motion to Compel and seek 23 necessary sanctions in connection therewith. Based on the facts set out above, monetary 24 sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel, Jacob O. Partiyeli of Law Office of Jacob O. 25 Partiyeli, are both warranted and mandatory under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(d), 2023.010, 26 2023.020, 2023.030. Defendants thus respectfully request the Court award monetary sanctions 27 against Plaintiff and their counsel in the amount of $2,000 the cost to Defendant in bringing 28 19 DEFENDANT WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES