Andrew Muray, et al. v. Karen Lantz, et al

Case Number

24CV03000

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 10/30/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

(4) Motions to Compel

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Andrew Muray and Kerri Marshall: Richard I. Wideman

For Defendants and Cross-Complainants Karen Lantz and Andrew Farkas: James B. Devine

                     

RULINGS

For the reasons set forth herein:

1. The motion to compel further responses to requests for admission is granted in its entirety. Andrew Muray shall provide complete, verified, code-compliant responses, without objections, to requests for admission Nos. 2, 6, 7, 14, and 26, no later than November 13, 2024.
   1. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,497.50 are awarded in favor of Karen Lantz and against Andrew Muray, to be paid no later than December 13, 2024, to counsel for Karen Lantz.

2. The motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is granted in its entirety. Andrew Muray shall provide complete, verified, code-compliant responses, without objections, to form interrogatories 6.3, 9.1, and 17.1 as to requests for admissions Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 19, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, and 34 no later than November 13, 2024.
   1. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,497.50 are awarded in favor of Karen Lantz and against Andrew Muray, to be paid no later than December 13, 2024, to counsel for Karen Lantz.

3. The motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is granted in its entirety. Andrew Muray shall provide complete, verified, code-compliant responses, without objections, to special interrogatories Nos. 7, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 33, and 34 no later than November 13, 2024.
   1. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,497.50 are awarded in favor of Karen Lantz and against Andrew Muray, to be paid no later than December 13, 2024, to counsel for Karen Lantz.

4. The motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents, and for production of documents is granted in its entirety. Andrew Muray shall provide complete, verified, code-compliant responses, without objections except as to privilege to requests for production Nos. 5, 6, 7, 35, 36, 40, 41, and 43 no later than November 13, 2024, and shall also produce any responsive documents.
   1. As to any documents withheld based on a claim of privilege, Muray shall provide a privilege log containing sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of the claim.
   2. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,497.50 are awarded in favor of Karen Lantz and against Andrew Muray, to be paid no later than December 13, 2024, to counsel for Karen Lantz.

The trial date of 7/30/25 is confirmed.

Background

This action commenced on May 29, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by Plaintiffs Andrew Muray (“Muray”) and Kerri Marshall (“Marshall”) against Defendants Karen Lantz (“Lantz”) and Andrew Farkas (“Farkas”). The complaint is for injunction and damages for forcible entry and trespass, self-help, and quiet title based on adverse possession.

As alleged in the complaint:

Plaintiffs are the owners of real property known as 922 Roble Lane in Santa Barbara. Defendants are the owners of real property known as 916 Roble Lane in Santa Barbara, adjacent to Plaintiffs’ property.

On May 20, 2024, while Plaintiffs were away from their property, Defendants used bulldozers and other heavy construction equipment to remove a portion of Plaintiffs’ property, claiming that that portion of Plaintiffs’ property trespassed on Defendants’ property. Defendants removed a portion of the balcony, fencing, and foundation footings that had been present for approximately 40 years.

Sometime between 1979 and 1982, the prior owners of Plaintiffs’ property had made permitted additions to the property including the potions removed by Defendants. Defendants plan to construct improvements on the property including the area formerly occupied by the portions of Plaintiffs’ property that was removed by Defendants.

On July 5, 2024, Defendants filed a cross-complaint (“CC”) against Plaintiffs for: (1) trespass; (2) nuisance; and (3) declaratory relief.

As alleged in the cross-complaint:

Lantz was and is one of the trustees of the Kandyland Trust (the “Trust”). (CC, ¶ 1.) Farkas was and is one of the trustees of the Kandyland Trust. (CC, ¶ 2.) The Trust was and is the owner of 916 Roble Lane in Santa Barbara.

As a part of their acquisition of 916 Roble Lane, Lantz and Farkas intended to remodel the residence. (CC, ¶ 14.) Lantz and Farkas obtained permits from the City of Santa Barbara based on approved plans for the remodel. (Ibid.)

Beginning in December 2022, and over the course of several months, Muray conveyed to Lantz that Muray also wanted to complete a major renovation on his property, 922 Roble, which is adjacent to 916 Roble. (CC, ¶ 15.) Muray asked Lantz to come to Muray’s home office to look at architectural drawings and 3D modeling Murray had drawn for his own remodel. (Ibid.)

On January 8, 2023, Muray and Marshall, along with all other adjacent neighbors, were invited by Lantz and Farkas to 916 Roble where Lantz presented drawings pinned up in large format on the walls. (CC, ¶ 16.) The drawings included 3D color renderings and detailed floor plans representing an extensive renovation project. (Ibid.)

In September 2023, Muray asked Lantz if he could have a copy of Lantz and Farkas’ survey because Muray had a homemade measuring tool that allowed him to survey his own land and needed a starting point. (CC, ¶ 17.)

At some point in time, Muray began to email Lantz, without copying Marshall or Farkas, to ask for meetings at 922 Roble without either Marshall or Farkas being present. (CC, ¶ 18.) Lantz believed that Muray was trying to coordinate benefits of the parties’ mutual home improvements and to divide the cost of the work. (Ibid.) Muray’s behavior turned unprofessional with his repeated requests and push for meetings and to have a copy of Lantz and Farkas’ survey, which made Lantz feel uncomfortable. (Ibid.) Lantz emailed the surveyor, with Muray copied, and asked that a proposal be made to Muray for the scope of the work he desired. (Ibid.) Muray exhibited the same behavior with Lantz and Farkas’ drainage engineer. (Ibid.)

Muray began regularly emailing Lantz, without copying Marshall or Farkas, to let Muray know his travel schedule, as 922 Roble was used by Muray and Marshall for sporadic visits to Santa Barbara only. (CC, ¶ 19.) Muray again asked Lantz to look at his renovation work and wanted Lantz’s opinion about the design. (Ibid.)

In May 2023, Muray revealed to Lantz that Muray was unable to finance his renovation and would be offering 922 Roble for rent. (CC, ¶ 20.) When Lantz checked the rental listing for 922 Roble on Zillow, she saw that it was advertised as a “quiet oasis.” (Ibid.)

In October 2023, a couple who work from home decided to rent 922 Roble for the winter months of December 2023, through March 2024. (CC, ¶ 21.) The couple reached out to a mutual friend of Lantz and Farkas after Muray told the couple that Lantz and Farkas’ construction was minor and only involved stucco work. (Ibid.) The mutual fried advised Lantz that she told the couple that Lantz and Farkas’ permitted work was extensive and that it would likely be under construction for the entire time of the lease period. (CC, ¶ 22.) The mutual friend told Lantz and Farkas that the couple demanded a refund of their lease payment from Muray and cancelled the lease. (Ibid.)

In retaliation for the loss of the tenants, and Lantz’s rejection of Muray’s requests for private meetings without either Marshall or Farkas present, Muray began behaving aggressively toward Lantz. (CC, ¶ 23.)

During the renovation of 916 Roble, Lantz and Farkas became concerned that a dilapidated fence, that used to stand on a small four-inch strip of land between the two properties, was very close to the property line. (CC, ¶ 24.) Lantz and Farkas obtained a survey which showed that the fence, a portion of a deck attached to 922 Roble, and four-inch strip of land, were entirely within the 916 Roble property boundaries. (Ibid.) After receipt of the survey, Lantz researched city files to determine whether or not the fence had been permitted, and found that the city had issued a permit to the prior owners of 916 Roble, from whom Lantz and Farkas had purchased 916 Roble, and that the fence had been constructed entirely within the boundaries of 916 Roble. (CC, ¶ 26.)

On April 26, 2024, Lantz and Farkas directed their attorney to send a letter to Muray and Marshall requesting that they remove the encroaching deck, balcony, and utilities. (CC, ¶ 27.) On May 9, 2024, Marshall sent an email to counsel for Lantz and Farkas claiming that neither she nor Muray received the April 26th letter that was sent to 922 Roble because they do not visit 922 Roble often because of construction noise, the emailed version of the letter did not reach Muray because his name was misspelled, and Marshall was traveling out of state. (CC, ¶ 28.)

On May 22, 2024, permitted construction was taking place on 916 Roble, directly next to the fence, including removing the dirt adjacent to the fence and disputed area. (CC, ¶ 32.) When the grading was being done next to the fence, it became apparent that the fence had no footings. (Ibid.) Rather, it had four-inch posts every few feet that were placed directly into the ground with no concrete footings around the posts. (Ibid.) The fence posts were rotten and, as a result, removed because it posed a safety hazard to Lantz, Farkas, and their contractors. (Ibid.) During that process, no aspect of the footing of the deck attached to 922 Roble was disturbed. (Ibid.)

On July 3, 2024, Lantz served Muray with requests for admission, form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents and things.

On August 5, 2024, Muray served responses to the discovery requests. Deeming some of the responses insufficient, Lantz, through counsel, attempted to meet and confer regarding the responses but the parties were unable to resolve the dispute.

Lantz now moves to compel further responses to: (1) requests for admission Nos. 2, 6, 7, 14, and 26; (2) form interrogatories Nos. 6.3, 9.1, and 17.1; (3) special interrogatories Nos. 7, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 33, and 34; and (4) requests for production of documents Nos. 5, 6, 7, 35, 36, 40, 41, and 43, and for production of documents. Lantz also seeks monetary sanctions for each motion.

Muray opposes the motions to compel.

Analysis

As an initial matter, Muray argues that the separate statements, in support of each of the motions, are deficient for various reasons. The Court finds that they comply with the California Rules of Court and are adequate.

“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.)

“A trial Court must be mindful of the Legislature’s preference for discovery over trial by surprise, must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery. . .” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)

Requests for Admission

As noted above, Lantz moves to compel further responses to requests for admissions Nos. 2, 6, 7, 14, and 26.

RFAs “differ fundamentally from other forms of discovery. Rather than seeking to uncover information, they seek to eliminate the need for proof.” (Murillo v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 730, 735.)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2033.010 provides, in pertinent part: “Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.”

“The party to whom requests for admission have been directed shall respond in writing under oath separately to each request. Each response shall answer the substance of the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.210, subds. (a-b).

The responding party has an affirmative duty to “admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (b)(1).) If, after conducting a reasonable and good faith inquiry, the responding party does not have enough information to admit or deny the matter asserted, it is reasonable to respond as such.

Request No. 2 asks Muray to admit: “Please admit that YOU have not continuously occupied 922 ROBLE during the five (5) years prior to May 29, 2024.” Muray responded: “Objection. Irrelevant. Not related to any issue in this case nor designed to lead to any relevant evidence.”

Lantz argues that because Muray claims adverse possession that the time frame is relevant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 325, subdivision (b), which states: “In no case shall adverse possession be considered established under the provision of any section of this code, unless it shall be shown that the land has been occupied and claimed for the period of five years continuously, and the party or persons, their predecessors and grantors, have timely paid all state, county, or municipal taxes that have been levied and assessed upon the land for the period of five years during which the land has been occupied and claimed. Payment of those taxes by the party or persons, their predecessors and grantors shall be established by certified records of the county tax collector.”

Muray argues that it is irrelevant because he did not purchase the property until December 2020 (less than five years before the request), and that his occupancy is not the basis for the claim of adverse possession. Rather the claim is that the alleged improvement on which the claim of adverse possession is based occurred more that 40 years ago and the prior owners continuously occupied the premises prior to Muray and Marshall purchasing it.

While the Court understands Muray’s argument in this regard, it is not a proper basis for refusing to either admit or deny the request. Discovery is expansive and:

  “ ‘ “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it “ ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. . . .’ ” [Citation.] Admissibility is not the test and information unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation.] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery [citation], and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases.’ ” [Citation.]” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 591.)

Lantz presumably served request No. 2 to discovery the basis of Muray’s claim. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to object to the interrogatory, and Muray will be ordered to provide a further, code-compliant, response.

Request No. 6 asks Muray to admit: “Please admit that no PERSONS have continuously occupied 916 ROBLE since August 25, 2022, other than DEFENDANTS.” Request No. 7 asks Muray to admit: “Please admit that no PERSONS have continuously claimed an ownership interest in 916 ROBLE since August 25, 2022, other than DEFENDANTS.” Muray responded to each of the interrogatories admitting in part and denying in part.

Lantz argues that further responses are required because it is unclear what Muray is admitting and what he is denying. The Court agrees. Muray argues, as to both requests: “It is obvious that the admit in part and deny in part refers to the portion as to which the adverse possession claim relates.” (Opp., p. 3, ll. 22-23.) Contrary to Muray’s argument, it is not obvious. The request is simple and straight forward. It should be responded to in a similarly clear manner. Muray will be ordered to provide a further response.

Request No. 14 asks Muray to admit: “Please admit that YOU have not made any improvements to any portion of 916 ROBLE that YOU claim YOU acquired through adverse possession.” Muray responded: Objection. Irrelevant and not related to any issue in the lawsuit nor designed to lead to any relevant evidence.”

A further response to request No. 14 will be ordered for the same reason that a further response to request No. 2 will be ordered.

Request No. 26 asks Muray to admit: “Please admit that no PERSON has ever permitted the BALCONY to be constructed such that any portion of the BALCONY extends over 916 ROBLE.” Muray responded: “Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.”

“Assumes facts not in evidence” is not a proper grounds for objection to written discovery. It is an objection to the form of the question. Objections to the form of the question are for “the protection of a witness on oral examination” and not applicable to written discovery. (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 421.)

Muray will be ordered to provide a further response.

Lantz’s request for sanctions will be addressed below.

Form and Special Interrogatories

Lantz moves to compel Muray to provide further responses to form interrogatories Nos. 6.3, 9.1, and 17.1 as to requests for admissions Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 19, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, and 34. Lantz also moves to compel Muray to provide further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 7, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 33, and 34.

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).) 

Form interrogatory No. 6.3 asks: “Do you still have any complaints that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each complaint state: (a) a description; (b) whether the complaint is subsiding, remaining the same, or becoming worse; and (c) the frequency and duration.” Muray responded: “We filed a Complaint in Court about the removal of the wall attached to our deck. The remainder of the Interrogatory is inapplicable.”

Muray’s response does not address what is being asked. The relevant subset of interrogatories relates to, and is titled, “physical, mental, or emotional injuries.” In the complaint, as well as in responses to other discovery requests, Muray claims “emotional damages” and “mental anguish.” The interrogatory is simply asking Muray whether he still has complaints that he attributes to the incident and, if so, to provide details. Incident is defined in the form interrogatories as: “INCIDENT includes the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding.” The interrogatory is straight forward and Muray is obligated to provide a straight-forward, code compliant response. He will be ordered to do so.

Form interrogatory No. 9.1 asks: “Are there any other damages that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item of damage state: (a) the nature; (b) the date it occurred; (c) the amount; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON to whom an obligation was incurred.” Muray responded: “Definition of ‘incident’ is ambiguous uncertain and this cannot be responded to.”

There is nothing ambiguous or uncertain about the interrogatory. It is simply requesting Muray to disclose if there are any other damages that he attributes to the series of events that are the subject of this action. Muray will be ordered to provide a further response.

Form interrogatory 17.1 asks: “Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the number of the request; (b) state all facts on which you base your response; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.”

As noted above, Lantz seeks further responses as to requests for admissions Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 19, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, and 34.

The Court has reviewed each response, as well as each of the requests for admission to which they relate, and none of the responses are complete or proper. Some of them contain unmeritorious, or improper objections, such as “irrelevant” or “assumes facts not in evidence.” Further, most of the responses are not responded to separately and refer Lantz to previous responses. This is not proper.

Muray will be ordered to provide further, code-compliant, responses as to form interrogatory No. 17.1, as it pertains to requests for admissions Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 19, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, and 34.

Special interrogatory No. 7 requests: “Please state all facts upon which YOU base the allegations contained in paragraph 9 or YOUR COMPLAINT.” Muray responded: “This is objected to as being compound and conjunctive. That is a fact; the additions to the deck were permitted and included an attached decorative wall.

Paragraph 9 of the complaint, to which the interrogatory pertains, alleges: “At sometime between 1979 and 1982, the prior owners of the Muray Property made certain permitted additions to said property including the portions thereof that Defendants, and each of them, claim were trespassing on the Lantz Property and that were removed by Defendants and each of them, in late May 2024.”

Muray’s objections are meritless, and the response does not directly address the interrogatory. This is discovery and Muray has an obligation to provide a complete and straight-forward response. He will be ordered to do so.

Special interrogatory No. 13 requests: “Please state all facts upon which YOU base the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of YOUR COMPLAINT.” Muray responded: “Objection, compound and conjunctive. There a are numerous allegations in this paragraph Including claims for legal rights (which) are properly discoverable) and damages and it is unanswerable as a single interrogatory.

Paragraph 11 of the complaint, to which the interrogatory pertains, alleges: “Plaintiff’s request a judicial declaration of their ownership of the real property on which the improvements removed by Defendants were located and damages for Defendants’ trespass onto that property, according to proof, which Plaintiffs are informed and believe are in excess of $500,000.”

Muray’s objections are without merit and his arguments made in opposition are conclusory. He will be ordered to provide a further response.

Special interrogatory No. 14 requests: “Please provide the CONTACT INFORMATION of all PERSONS that YOU believe have knowledge of the facts upon which YOU base the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of YOUR COMPLAINT.” Muray responded: “See: Objection to No. 13.

Special interrogatory No. 15 requests: “Please describe any and all DOCUMENTS that YOU believe support the facts upon which YOU base the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of YOUR COMPLAINT by stating its title, date, parties signatory, and subject matter.” Muray responded: “This is compound and conjunctive and is objected to. See also: Objection to No. 13.”

Muray’s objections are again without merit. Muray will be ordered to provide further responses to Nos. 14 and 15 for the same reason as he is ordered to provide a further response to No. 13.

Special interrogatory No. 19 requests: “Please state all facts upon which YOU base the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of YOUR COMPLAINT.” Special interrogatories Nos. 20 and 21 seek information regarding witnesses and documents respectively. Muray responded: “See: paperwork filed in support of Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.”

Paragraph 14 of the complaint, to which the interrogatory pertains, alleges: “Plaintiffs have on plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law; Defendants conduct in continuing to construct improvements and otherwise enter onto portions of the Muray Property which Plaintiffs’ predecessors and Plaintiffs have adversely possessed; a multiplicity of legal actions will be necessary to redress Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages when such continued trespass by Defendants occurs. Plaintiffs’ damages are not easily calculated and are continuing unabated and will continue, requiring a multiplicity of legal actions, unless Defendants, and each of them and their agents and employees are enjoined and restrained from the following conduct immediately and permanently, as follows: Constructing or otherwise entering onto that portion of the property on which they removed improvements connected to 922 Roble Lane pending the determination of this action.”

Muray’s argument that he need not provide further responses because “the issue” has previously been briefed, argued, and ruled upon, is without merit. Muray is obligated to provide complete responses to the interrogatories regardless of whether he thinks he has provided the information via a different manner. He will be ordered to do so.

Special interrogatory No. 22 requests: “Please state all facts upon which YOU base the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of YOUR COMPLAINT.” Special interrogatories Nos. 23 and 24 seek information regarding witnesses and documents respectively. Muray responded to No 22 with: “ ‘Incidental and consequential’ damages through the date of judgment not yet computed; this is premature.” Muray also claimed that No’s 23 and 24 are premature.

Paragraph 15 of the complaint, to which the interrogatory pertains, alleges: “In addition thereto, Plaintiffs seek consequential and incidental damages for Defendants’ conduct to the date of judgment herein, in an amount subject to proof but which Plaintiffs are informed and believe to be over $500,000.”

While Muray may not know the total amount of damages that will be incurred through the date of judgment, he must respond with the information that he now possesses, and which is the basis for paragraph 15 of his complaint. He is obligated to provide the requested information regarding his claimed consequential and incidental damages, and he will be ordered to do so.

Special interrogatory No. 25 requests: “Please state all dates in the five (5) years prior to May 29, 2024, that YOU were present at 922 ROBLE.” Muray responded: “Objection. Irrelevant. Violation of my personal privacy.”

The interrogatory seeks discovery of information relative to Muray’s claims of adverse possession, similar to other discovery requests discussed above, and Muray will be ordered to provide a further response.

Special interrogatory  No. 29 requests: “If YOU contend that YOU acquired an ownership interest in any portion of 916 ROBLE, then please describe any and all DOCUMENTS that YOU believe support the facts upon which YOU base such contention, by stating its title, date, parties signatory, and subject matter.” Muray responded: “Not applicable.”

Muray argues that his responses to special interrogatories Nos. 27 and 28 show that his response to No. 29 is an appropriate response. The Court has reviewed those responses and finds that the responses to Nos. 27 and 28 actually demonstrate that No. 29 is applicable. In response to Nos. 27 and 28, Muray claims that when he and his wife acquired the property at 922 Roble, it “may have contained a small portion of property that had once belonged to 916 Roble.” The complaint also alleges an ownership interest in portions of 916 Roble through adverse possession. As such, the interrogatory is applicable, relevant, and Muray must provide a code-compliant response.

Special interrogatory No. 30 requests: “If YOU have offered to lease 922 ROBLE to any PERSON within five (5) years of May 29, 2024, then please provide the CONTACT INFORMATION for all PERSONS to whom YOU have offered to lease 922 ROBLE.” Muray responded: “Objection as irrelevant and violation of financial privacy.”

Again, this interrogatory seeks information related to Muray’s adverse possession claims. Muray had failed to justify his objections and he will be ordered to provide a further response.

Special interrogatory No. 33 requests: “Please describe in detail all damages that YOU have claimed to have suffered as alleged in paragraph 11 or YOUR COMPLAINT.” Muray responded: “Damages not yet calculated.”

Muray will be ordered to provide a further response to the interrogatory for the same reason he will be ordered to provide a further response to Nos. 22, 23, and 24.

Special interrogatory No. 34 requests: “Please describe in detail all damages that YOU have claimed to have suffered as alleged in paragraph 15 of YOUR COMPLAINT.” Muray responded: “This is the same as No. 22.”

Special interrogatory No. 34 is not the same as No. 22. No. 22 asks for facts upon which Muray bases his allegations. No. 34 seeks information regarding damages. The two are not the same. It is a proper discovery request and Muray will be ordered to provide a further response.

Lantz’s request for monetary sanctions will be addressed below.

Production of Documents

As noted above, Lantz seeks further responses to requests for production of documents Nos. 5, 6, 7, 35, 36, 40, 41, and 43.

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.010 provides, in pertinent part: 

“(a) Any party may obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made. 

“(b) A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.” 

“The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following: 

“(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling . . . 

“(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item, or 

“(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for production of documents “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) To establish good cause, the burden is on the moving party to make a “fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)

“(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:

“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

“(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

“(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

“(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following:

“(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.

“(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

“(3) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the Court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.

“(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subds. (a)-(c).)

“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).)

RFP No. 5 seeks: “Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS described in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 15, served concurrently herewith.” Muray responded: “Will not comply. Documents have either been produced or are equally available to all parties in the offices of City of Santa Barbara planning and Building Dept.”

Murry did not describe any documents in his response to special interrogatory No. 15, which is addressed above. Therefore, there are no documents for him to produce in response. However, as he will be ordered to provide a further response to special interrogatory No. 15, should he identify any documents in response, he will be ordered to provide a supplemental response to RFP No. 5.

RFP No. 6 seeks: “Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS described in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 18, served concurrently herewith.” Muray responded: “Will not comply. Only documents known are those attached to Lantz’s pleadings and are in Lantz’s possession.”

In response to special interrogatory No. 18, Muray identified Lantz’s declaration and the exhibit she produced showing a planter being constructed in the area where the balcony, Lantz had removed, used to be located. Muray needs to provide a further response that complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, and produce any responsive documents in the manner required by code.

RFP No. 7 seeks: “Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS described in YOUR responses to Special Interrogatory No. 21, served concurrently herewith.” Muray responded: “Will not comply; all such documents were produced in papers filed relating to the Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order.”

In response to special interrogatory 21, Muray identified “paperwork filed in support of Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Muray will be ordered to provide a further response that complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, and produce any responsive documents in the manner required by code, for the same reason as he will be ordered to provide a further response to RFP No. 6.

RFP No. 35 requests: “Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS consisting of correspondence between YOU and any PERSON regarding LANTZ, including but not limited to letters, emails, text messages, memoranda, and Slack communication, that is dated within the five (5) years prior to May 29, 2024.” Muray responded: “This is the same as No. 33. Objection.”

The RFP is not the same as No. 33, as argued by Muray. No. 33 asks for correspondence between Muray and Lantz. No. 35 asks for correspondence between Muray and other persons regarding Lantz. Muray will be ordered to provide a proper response.

RFP No. 36 requests: “Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS consisting of correspondence between YOU and any PERSON regarding FARKAS, including but not limited to letters, emails, text messages, memoranda, and Slack communication, that is dated withing the five (5) years prior to May 29, 2024.” Murray responded: “This is the same as No. 34. Objection.”

RFP No. 36 is the same as No. 35 except with respect to Farkas instead of Lantz. Likewise, No. 36 is not the same as No. 34 for the same reason that No. 35 is not the same as No. 33. Muray will be ordered to provide a proper response.

RFP No. 40 seeks: “Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS consisting of correspondence between YOU and any PERSON regarding, referring, or related to LANTZ’s construction activities at 916 Roble . . ., including but not limited to letters, emails, text messages, memoranda, and Slack communication.” Muray responded: “Attorney-client privilege.”

Muray’s response is incomplete. There is no indication whether there are any documents that are not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Muray will be ordered to provide a further response and, for any document withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege, Muray will be ordered to produce a privilege log pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivision (c), containing sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of the claim.

RFP No. 41 seeks: “Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS regarding, referring, or related to YOU leasing 922 ROBLE to any PERSON within the five (5) years prior to May 29, 2024, including but not limited to advertisements that 922 ROBLE was available to be leased.” Muray responded: “Objection. Irrelevant.”

This is another discovery request that is geared towards discovery of information related to Muray’s adverse possession claims and it is not irrelevant. Muray will be ordered to provide a further response.

RFP No. 43 seeks: “Please produce any and all DOCUMETS consisting of correspondence between YOU and any PERSON regarding, referring, or related to YOUR payment of property taxes to the County of Santa Barbara for any portion of 916 ROBLE, including but not limited to letters, emails, text messages, memoranda, and Slack communication.” Muray did not serve a response and acknowledges so in his opposition. He will be ordered to provide a code-compliant response.

Sanctions

Lantz seeks monetary sanctions in the total amount of $5,990, for fees and costs with bringing the four motions to compel. The amount per motion totals $1,497.50.

The Court “shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to [or requests for production of documents, requests for admissions, or interrogatories], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.300, subd. (c); 2033.290, subd. (d); 2030.300, subd. (d).)

The motions are supported by a declaration of Lantz’s counsel setting forth his hourly billing rate of $350 per hour and the time expended in preparing the four motions to compel as well as the filing fees for each motion.

The Court finds that Muray did not act with substantial justification in his improper and evasive responses. Further, Muray failed to meaningfully respond to attempts by Lantz to resolve the issues short of the present motions. Discovery should be self-executing and, if the applicable code sections are followed, disputes should rarely result in the need to file motions to compel.

Not meant as a punishment, but rather to compensate Lantz for the necessity of bringing the motions, the requested monetary sanctions will be awarded to Lantz to cover her fees and costs associated with the motions.

NOTICE: We may not have a Court reporter for the trial of your case. We do have a Court reporter for CMC and L&M Calendars. Check with the Court before you hire your own Court reporter. If counsel wants to hire a Court reporter, it will be your obligation to retain one for the trial. There can only be one official record of Court proceedings, and only a reporter appointed by the Court may report a Court proceeding.  Only one reporter will be allowed to report a Court proceeding at any given time.  If the parties cannot agree on a reporter, the Court will make the selection after you submit the name and address of the Court reporter each counsel has engaged. Counsel will notify the Court 10 days in advance of the trial date if you are going to provide a Court reporter. Every reporter who is not otherwise on the pre-approved list of reporters pro tempore shall complete and sign SC-1046. You may request that the electronic recording system that is already installed in the Courtroom be used. Information about that may be obtained from the Court’s website.