Case Number: KC067736??? Hearing Date: September 02, 2016??? Dept: J
Re: Delta Dawgs Construction Corp., etc. v. Qiang Li (KC067736)
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
Moving Party: Defendant Qiang Li
Respondent: Plaintiff, Delta Dawgs Construction Corp. dba Express Restoration Company
POS: Moving OK; Opposing filed just 8 court days prior to the hearing, in violation of CCP ? 1005(b)
This action arises from a water damage incident where Plaintiff was requested to perform dryout and mitigation work on Defendant?s residential real property. Plaintiff alleges that it has not been paid any money to date for such work. Plaintiff seeks to recover reasonable value for water damage mitigation services rendered to Defendant. Plaintiff commenced this action on 7/24/15. The First Amended Complaint, filed on 10/2/15, asserts a cause of action for:
1. Breach of Contract
2. For Reasonable Value of Work, Labor and Materials Furnished
The Final Status Conference is set for 12/5/16. A jury trial is set for 12/13/16.
Defendant Qiang LI (?defendant?) now moves this court, per CCP ? 2030.300, for an order compelling Plaintiff Delta Dawgs Construction Corp. dba Express Restoration Company (?Plaintiff?) to provide a further response to his Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, No. 8, which was originally served on 1/6/16. Defendant also seeks sanctions of $3,270.00 [calculated as follows: .5 hours reviewing/analyzing supplemental discovery responses + 2.25 hours spent engaging in meet & confer process + 3.25 hours spent preparing motion + 3 hours preparing reply and attending hearing at $350.00/hr. + $60.00 filing fee].
?On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.? CCP ? 2030.300(a). ?A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.? CCP ? 2030.300(b). ?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 propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.? CCP ? 2030.300(b).
On 1/6/16, Defendant Qiang Li (?defendant?) served his Special Interrogatories, Set No. One on Plaintiff Delta Dawgs Construction Corp. dba Express Restoration Company (?plaintiff?). (Weiss Decl., ? 2, Exhibit ?1?). On 4/5/16, plaintiff served its supplemental responses thereto. (Id., ? 3, Exhibit ?2?). The parties have met and conferred, as evidenced by Exhibits ?3?-?6? attached to Weiss? Declaration. This instant motion, moreover, was timely filed.
The special interrogatory in issue, No. 8, reads as follows: ?IDENTIFY ALL natural persons who were YOUR EMPLOYEES at any time between December 12, 2011 and November 4, 2014.? Plaintiff originally provided the following substantive response: ?Responding Party is unaware of any employees during the relevant time period.? Plaintiff subsequently provided the following substantive response: ?Responding Party states that all work performed by Responding Party for defendant Qiang Li occurred between 10/10/2014 and 11/04/2014. At that time, Responding Party had no EMPLOYEES, as that term has been specifically defined, besides Paul Woloski and Tammy Woloski when the job in question occurred.?
Defendant contends that the identity of plaintiff?s employees at any time between 12/12/11, when it first filed a statement with the California Contractors State License Board claiming it was exempt from the requirement to obtain workers? compensation insurance, and 11/4/14, when it completed performing the purported work at issue, is relevant, because it would have been obligated to maintain workers? compensation insurance for any such employees. Defendant argues that if plaintiff did not obtain such insurance, then its contractor?s license would have been suspended by operation of law ?on the date that workers? compensation coverage is required to be obtained,? per Business & Professions Code ? 7125.2, such that plaintiff would be prevented, per section 7031, from recovering on its claims.
As plaintiff states, ?[i]f Defendant?s argument had merit, any contractor that did not have employees when it performed a job would be subjected to?discovery about all its past employees, in an effort to allow a homeowner to discover facts to justify his non-payment.? (Opposition, 2:24-27). At any rate, it appears that plaintiff has already sufficiently answered the interrogatory, by first advising that it ?is unaware of any employees during the relevant time period? and then by clarifying that it ?had no employees, as that term has been specifically defined, besides Paul Woloski and Tammy Woloski when the job in question occurred.?
Inasmuch as no further response is warranted, the motion is denied. Sanctions are declined.