Ruling on Submitted Matter

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.August 12, 2015

123 23561 378401583 562400020067960 113454 21905 89 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, MINUTE ORDER TIME: 04:48:00 PM JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Roger Lund COUNTY OF VENTURA VENTURA DATE: 11/25/2015 DEPT: 23 CLERK: Sonia Barreto REPORTER/ERM: CASE NO: 56-2015-00470900-CL-UD-VTA CASE TITLE: Villa Del Arroyo Moorpark LLC vs. Rude CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Limited CASE TYPE: Unlawful Detainer - Residential EVENT TYPE: Ruling on Submitted Matter STOLO APPEARANCES STOLO Stolo The Court, having previously taken the Motion to Compel under submission, now rules as follows: The Court, having previously taken the Motion to Compel under submission, now rules as follows: The Court, having previously taken the Motion to Compel under submission, now rules as follows: The Court, having previously taken the Motion to Compel under submission, now rules as follows: The Court, having previously taken the Motions to Compel under submission, now rules as follows: On November 19, 2015, Plaintiff's four Motions to Compel Discovery previously filed came on for hearing before Judge Roger L. Lund, presiding. Gregory Beam, Esq., appeared as counsel for Plaintiff, and Frances M. Campbell, Esq., appeared as counsel for Defendants. After hearing argument, the court took the matters under submission and now hereby finds, rules and orders as follows: Background: Villa del Arroyo Moorpark LLC filed an Unlawful Detainer (hereafter "UD") complaint on August 12, 2015 against Doug Rude and Nancy Rude. The UD relates to a mobile home space. The rental agreement and 60-day notice to quit are attached as exhibits to the complaint. Defendants, Doug and Nancy Rude, answered by asserting that they were not properly served and that there are insufficient allegations as to support a reason for their eviction. Service: The court finds that services was given as required by law. Grounds: Villa del Arroyo Moorpark LLC (hereafter "Plaintiff") seeks an order to compel Doug and VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 11/25/2015 Page 1 DEPT: 23 CASE TITLE: Villa Del Arroyo Moorpark LLC vs. Rude CASE NO: 56-2015-00470900-CL-UD-VTA Nancy Rude (hereafter "Defendants") to each provide supplemental responses to: 1) form interrogatories; 2) special interrogatories; 3) document production; and 4) request for production. Opposition: Defendants assert that the motion is improper because it combines multiple discovery matters in one omnibus motion; that there is no substantial justification for the motion; that there is no basis for sanctions. In fact, Defendants argue, sanctions should be issued against Plaintiffs. Analysis: As a general matter, it would appear that Defendants do not believe that discovery is necessary or proper in UD actions. Their responses are so deficient that counsel would appear to think that since both sides know each other well (landlord and tenant) that discovery is unnecessary. That, of course, is inaccurate, and Defendants cite nothing to suggest that discovery should be unavailable even in the summary proceeding of a UD. The California Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter "CCP") specifically authorizes the filing of a discovery motion. CCP §1170.8. Defendants' basic refusal to respond to the discovery was improper. Defendants are correct that pursuant to the California Rule of Court 3.1345, Plaintiff should have provided separate statements for each discovery form for both defendants. Instead, Plaintiff put both of Defendant's responses in the same separate statement. However, because the discovery directed to Doug and Nancy was identical in every way, as were their responses, the court declines to consider this technicality. The combined separate statement caused no problems for the Court or Defendants in terms of evaluating the merits of the dispute here. The court will address each discovery device at issue as follows: Form Interrogatories 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 - These form interrogatories are part of the Judicial Council form directed to uncovering "background information." By using these interrogatories, a propounding party seeks basis information (name, address, employment, education, felony convictions, etc.). These are the most generic of questions and there was no reason for Defendants not to respond to them. Instead, Defendants responded by objecting on the grounds that the discovery was harassing and intended to annoy or vex the responding party. They also asserted that the discovery was irrelevant. Again, these interrogatories are so basic that there was no reason for either Defendant to object or refuse to answer. Plaintiff points out that information about Defendants' employment and educational backgrounds could be used to establish that the Defendants knew and understood the applicable rules and regulations of the mobile home park. Plaintiff also asserts that information as to felony convictions could be used to impeach a Defendant's credibility. Frankly, these arguments weren't necessary as Defendants' conduct in opposing these interrogatories was inexcusable. THE MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED. VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 11/25/2015 Page 2 DEPT: 23 CASE TITLE: Villa Del Arroyo Moorpark LLC vs. Rude CASE NO: 56-2015-00470900-CL-UD-VTA 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2 - These form interrogatories go to any investigation of the incident that might have occurred: i.e., witnesses, people interviewed, recorded statements about the incident, photographs, diagrams, reports, etc. Defendants responded the same as to each: objection on the grounds of burden and oppression, vagueness, and also ambiguity, because the use of the term "Incident" is not adequately defined in the interrogatory and that made it impossible for Defandants to respond. This series of form interrogatories is also very standard practice in a civil case such as the instant UD actions. The party opponent is entitled to know about the witnesses, the photographs, the reports, etc. that provide evidence about the dispute. The only potential issue that arises at times with the use of these form interrogatories is exactly what transpired here: uncertainty about the term "Incident." When a lawsuit is about a car crash it is easy to understand the incident that occurred. When the lawsuit is about medical malpractice - improper diagnosis, procedure and post-operative care - it is more difficult to understand what "incident" is at issue. The relevant question here, therefore, is what the "incident" at issue is here in this UD action. Based upon the complaint, the alleged reason that Defendants have been evicted is that they violated the mobile home park rule that does not allow improvements. Allegedly, Defendants constructed an "unapproved structure" on their space and they received three different notices of violation in March, April, and May 2015. They did not abate the violation and were evicted. Based on that description of the lawsuit as framed in the complaint, the court considers the question "Is the term "incident" something that Defendants could have responded to in their interrogatories?" Despite Defendants' claim to the contrary, the answer is a resounding "Yes." It is disingenuous for Defendants to respond that they do not know to which "incident" they should respond. Plaintiff checked the box "Incident" at section 4 of the form interrogatories, which defines the term "incident" to include "the circumstances and events surrounding the.....breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding." It is clear from the complaint and the attachments thereto that, as noted above, the Defendants allegedly constructed a structure that was not approved and they received notice of violation about the structure. Several legitimate questions now arise, for example: Who saw the structure? (Form Interrogatory 12.1 asks this question). Did anyone make a written or recorded statement about the structure or the notices? (12.3). Were there any reports made about the structure or the notices? (12.6). The likelihood that Defendants may not have any information that is responsive to some of the form interrogatories (i.e. would there really be any recorded statements about this matter?) does not mean that the interrogatories are not relevant and proper. THE MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED. 17.1 - This standard form interrogatory asks for an explanation as to why a response to a request for admission ("RFA") is not an unqualified admission. Defandants objected to RFAs 1 through 4 and 7 through 33. With respect to 17.1, Defendants responses were wholly insufficient. They did not state any facts that supported their response. They hid behind a disingenuous assertion that use of the term "you" and "your" was somehow uncertain in the RFAs. When asked at 17.1(c) to state the name and address of anyone who would have knowledge of the fact that supports the response to the RFA, Defendants rudely (no pun intended) responded: "anyone who reads the request." Finally, Defendants did not refer to any documents to support the basis for their response, but instead said that the request for the admissions itself was responsive. How could that possibly be? How could the discovery document that Plaintiff served upon Defendants be a document that supports Defendants' response to that discovery? This response is nonsense. VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 11/25/2015 Page 3 DEPT: 23 CASE TITLE: Villa Del Arroyo Moorpark LLC vs. Rude CASE NO: 56-2015-00470900-CL-UD-VTA THE MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED. 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, 50.6 - These form interrogatories fall under the "contract" category; they relate to information pertaining to applicable contracts, breaches thereto, excuse of performance, mutual release, unenforceability, etc. In other words, the form interrgoatories seek very basic discovery that is applicable in situations where a contract is at issue as is the case here: the rental agreement. Notwithstanding, Defendants' only response was to object on the grounds that the interrogatory was harassing and intended to annoy and vex the responding party. This response is totally inappropriate. THE MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED. Special Interrogatories 1-36 - The court has reviewed each of these special interrogatories (hereafter "SR"). They are standard contention interrogatories, to wit: Do you, Doug Rude, contend that you did not need a permit from the Department of Housing and Community Development to construct the structure on the premises? (SR 1). Do you, Doug Rude, contend that you had a permit? (SR 5). Do you contend that you did not need permission from the Plaintiff to build the structure? (SR 9). In keeping with standard discovery strategy, after each contention interrogatory, the responding party is asked as series of additional interrogatories concerning facts, documents, and witnesses that support the contention. (e.g., SR 2-4). Continuing their inexcusable discovery practice in this case, Defendants offered the following responses to the special interrogatories: Objecting that the term "you" or "your" was ambiguous and overbroad; objecting "that the request is not full and complete in and of itself as required by [CCP] section 2030.060(d)." Both of these objections lack any merit. "You" and "Your" is clearly defined in each set of discovery to mean Doug Rude and Nancy Rude and any of their agents, employees, etc. This is standard phrasing in discovery. Similarly, there is nothing that is "incomplete" about any of the special interrogatories. THE MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED. 37-43 - These special interrogatories are not contention interrogatories. Here, instead, Plaintiff asks Defendants to: (37) describe the ways in which the shed has been used; (38) identify all persons who have occupied the premises since April 2009; (39) state the dates upon which those people have resided at the premises; (40) describe the communications with California Housing and Community Development about the shed; (41) describe the communications with Plaintiff that occurred about the shed; (42) describe the communications with the mobile home park that occurred about the shed; and (43) describe the communications with any person about the shed. Defendants made the same bogus objections as with 1-36, but added that the "interrogatory lacks foundation." That objection is not a proper objection to a discovery request. The whole point of discovery is to uncover the facts that underlie the dispute; there need not be any foundation set out for written discovery. Defendants also argue relevance. The questions are fundamentally relevant. What makes Defendants think that they can have the shed at the premises? Who have they spoken to about that issue? These questions are clearly relevant. VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 11/25/2015 Page 4 DEPT: 23 CASE TITLE: Villa Del Arroyo Moorpark LLC vs. Rude CASE NO: 56-2015-00470900-CL-UD-VTA THE MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED. Requests for Production 1-30 - Again, the court has reviewed each of the requests for document production ("RFP") to see if there is any shred of merit to the position that Defendants have taken in responding to the discovery. RFP 1-4, 20, 29, and 30 seek documents that would support Defendants' stated affirmative defenses, their answer, and their denials of the allegations in the complaint. RFP 5 deals with documents related to the construction of the shed. RFP 6-11 relate to documents associated with the notices of violation that Plaintiff issued to Defendants and the steps that Defendants took to remedy those violations. RFP 12-19 relate to documents sent by Defendants or received by Defendants to the mobile home park related to the shed or the notices of violation. RFP 21-25 relate to documents that reflect communications between Defendants and others related to the notices of violation, etc. RFP 26-28 seeks documents Defendants identified in their responses to the form interrogatories and special interrogatories. Each of these RFPs is perfectly acceptable. Defendants' objections about "You" (discussed above) or any other ambiguities are not well taken. The defined terms such as "Rules" (meaning park rules) and "Answer" (meaning Defendants' answer to the complaint) are fine. THE MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED. Requests for Admission 1-4, 7-33 - Having reviewed the requests for admission ("RFAs"), the court does not find any merit to Defendants' objections. The RFAs ask Defendants to admit the existence and authenticity of the rental agreement; that the rental agreement incorporates the park rules; that the rental agreement requires Defendants to pay gas, water, trash collection, sewer charge; that Defendants were served with notices of violation and that Defendants did not correct the violations; that Defendants were served with a notice to quit but did not vacate the premises; that Defendants are in possession of the premises without permission; that Defendants violated the park rules (and California regulatory law) by constructing the shed without permission from the park or Housing and Community Development. The objections asserted by Defendants were that "Agreement", "You", "Rules" were confusing and ambiguous. This is clearly not the case. Again, Defendants made the bogus objection that there was a lack of foundation. They also said that the RFAs were not complete in and of themselves. This is clearly not the case. Defendants also argued that certain of the RFAs demanded a legal conclusion (i.e., RFA 27: "admit that you are in violation of Section 1510 of the Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations by having built the storage shed structure on the Premises"). But, asking a party a legal question is not per se objectionable. "[W]hen a party is served with a request for admission concerning a legal question properly raised in the pleadings he cannot object simply by asserting that the request calls for a conclusion of law. He should make the admission if he is able to do so and does not in good faith intend to contest the issue at trial, thereby 'setting at rest a triable issue." Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 282. The court rejects the objections offered by Defendants on this issue. They can respond by saying "yes we admit a violation" or "no we don't." THE MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED. Ruling: The Court therefore grants the motions to compel as to each and every discovery item at issue. VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 11/25/2015 Page 5 DEPT: 23 CASE TITLE: Villa Del Arroyo Moorpark LLC vs. Rude CASE NO: 56-2015-00470900-CL-UD-VTA The Court has reviewed each of the discovery items and finds that Defendants' responses are deficient without exception. Plaintiffs propounded basic discovery: form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production. The discovery is clear. The discovery is not overly broad or voluminous. The questions asked relate directly to the dispute here: the alleged unauthorized structure and the dispute that arose between the parties about the structure. The use of defined terms including "You" and "Your" is in keeping with standard discovery practice and is in no way confusing or ambiguous. Defendants' insistence on unmeritorious objections and their refusal to provide even the most basic information concerning this dispute reflect a most egregious example of the misuse of the discovery process. CCP §2023.010(d)(e)(f). The Court imposes sanctions jointly and severally on Defendants and their counsel in the amount of $5,000, plus filing fees of $240. CCP §2023.030(a). Notice to be given by Clerk. STOLO VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 11/25/2015 Page 6 DEPT: 23