The Jean Michele Cross Revocable Trust v. Four P’s Group, LLC, et al

Case Number

23CV02092

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 02/07/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion of Plaintiff to Compel Further Responses by Defendant Jeff L. Handy to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories and for an Award of Monetary Sanctions

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff The Jean Michele Cross Revocable Trust: J. Paul Gignac

For Defendant Jeff L. Handy: Self-Represented       

    

                       

RULING

For the reasons set forth herein, the motion to compel further responses is denied. Plaintiff may re-serve the discovery in compliance with the California Rules of Court. Plaintiff is to give notice of this ruling and attach a copy of the minute order.

Background

This action was commenced on May 12, 2023, by the filing of the complaint by Plaintiff The Jean Michele Cross Revocable Trust (“Trust”) against Defendants Four P’s Group, LLC (“Four P’s) and Jeff L. Handy (collectively “Defendants”). The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract against both Defendants, and breach of personal guaranty against Handy.

As alleged in the complaint:

The action is for breach of a written 76-month convertible note agreement, dated October 26, 2020, that was entered into between Trust and Four P’s and was personally guaranteed by Handy. (Complaint, ¶ 1.)

The note provided that in consideration for the payment of $734,000.00 to Defendants, Defendants would pay specified amounts to Trust on or before the 11th of each month. (Complaint, ¶ 11.) The agreement provides that repayment will be guaranteed by Four P’s and personally guaranteed by Handy. (Complaint, ¶ 13.) Defendants breached the agreement by making payments of less than was due and by failing to make payments. (Complaint, ¶¶ 15 -17.)

As of the date of the complaint, Defendants had failed to pay a total of $75,997.00 in principal and interest as well as late fees in the amount of $4,699.85. (Complaint, ¶¶ 8-9.)

Handy filed his answer to the complaint on October 23, 2023, asserting a general denial and nine affirmative defenses.

Plaintiff obtained a default judgment against Four P’s, which was entered on December 20, 2023.

On October 24, 2023, Trust served Handy with its first set of form interrogatories (“ROGs”) via electronic mail. (Gignac Dec. ROG’s ¶ 4 & Exh. A.) Handy responded to the ROGs on November 30, 2023, via electronic mail. (Id. at ¶ 6 & Exh. B.) The ROG responses were not signed or verified. (Ibid.) On December 14, 2023, Trust, through its attorney of record, initiated the meet and confer process via email. (Id. at ¶ 7 & Exh. C.) Handy did not respond to the December 14, 2023 email. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

On January 3, 2024, Trust sent another email to Handy informing him that Trust would be filing a motion to compel unless it received verified further responses to the ROGs no later than January 9, 2024. (Id. at ¶ 9 & Exh. D.) On January 4, 2024, counsel for Trust received two emails from Handy stating that Handy would provide further responses to the ROGs before January 9, 2024. (Id. at ¶ 10 & Exhs. E, F.) Handy failed to provide further responses to the ROGs. (Id. at ¶ 11.)

Trust filed the present motion on January 11, 2024, and served Handy via electronic mail. Handy has filed no opposition or other response to the motion.

Analysis

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the Court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

            Interrogatories

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.010 provides, “(a) Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath. (b) An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.”

A party may respond to interrogatories, in writing and under oath, by (1) providing an answer containing the information sought, (2) exercising the option to produce writings, or (3) by objecting to the particular interrogatory. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2030.210 subd. (a).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 provides that, “(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. (c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”

            Service of Discovery and Motions

While Handy’s responses to the ROGs appear to be incomplete and evasive, Trust must still comply with the California Rules of Court.

California Rule of Court, rule 2.251(c)(3) provides:

“(3) Except when personal service is otherwise required by statute or rule, a party or other person that is required to file documents electronically in an action must also serve documents and accept service of documents electronically from all other parties or persons, unless:

“(A) The Court orders otherwise, or

“(B) The action includes parties or persons that are not required to file or serve documents electronically, including self-represented parties or other self-represented persons; those parties or other persons are to be served by non-electronic methods unless they affirmatively consent to electronic service.”

“In civil cases involving both represented and self-represented parties or other persons, represented parties or other persons may be required to file and serve documents electronically; however, in these cases, each self-represented party or other person is to file, serve, and be served with documents by non-electronic means unless the self-represented party or other person affirmatively agrees otherwise.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.253(b)(3)

As noted above, Trust served Handy with the ROGs, as well as the present motion, via electronic mail. There is no evidence before the Court that Handy affirmatively consented to accept electronic service. As Handy is self-represented, he must be served by non-electronic means.

Because of the improper service of the discovery and the motion, Trust’s motion must be denied. This order will be without prejudice for Trust to re-serve the discovery in compliance with the California Rules of Court. Should Handy’s responses remain deficient, or if he fails to respond, Trust may file, and properly serve Handy, the appropriate discovery motion.