Case Number: BC595796??? Hearing Date: October 20, 2016??? Dept: 56
Case Name: T. Morrissey Corporation v. The Check Connection Inc., et al.
Case No.: BC595796
Matter: Milman?s Motions to Compel Discovery
Tentative Ruling: Discovery motions are denied.
Plaintiff T. Morrissey Corporation filed this action against Check Connection Inc., Robert S. Milman, and other defendants. The operative FAC alleges causes of action for (1) negligence based upon violations of the UCC against Check Connection, Milman, and Pacific Premier/Independence Bank; and (2) aiding and abetting intentional torts asserted against all defendants. Plaintiff?s claims arise out of its payment for renovations and remodeling of Rite Aid stores, and Plaintiff alleges that checks were made to an unlicensed construction business and were cashed and deposited based on forged or missing endorsements.
Milman moves to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 12.1 (requesting identifying information for witnesses) and Special Interrogatories Nos. 1-5, 8, 11-13, 15-20, and 22-30 (requesting facts supporting specific allegations and information as to checks cashed by Check Connection).
Milman argues that Plaintiff?s responses ?do not contain a single relevant fact.? But the supplemental responses provided by Plaintiff on 6/13/16 contain extensive factual responses to the discovery requests. The response to FI No. 12.1 identifies witnesses and their contact numbers where specifically known, and otherwise refers to employees and PMKs of various involved entities. The responses to the SIs explain facts supporting Plaintiff?s claims as directed to Milman and Check Connection and include specific references to documents and checks that were produced. These supplemental responses are sufficient, and the discovery motions are denied.
Plaintiff is entitled to monetary sanctions under CCP ?2030.300(d) on two grounds: 1) Milman failed to meet and confer regarding Plaintiff?s supplemental responses, and 2) Plaintiff is the prevailing party on the motions.
Plaintiff requests $6,000 (20 hours at $300 per hour) for the SI motion, and $3,000 (10 hours at $300) for the FI motion. Plaintiff?s hourly rate is reasonable but the hours are excessive in light of the straightforward nature of the motions and the overlap between them. The Court will award Plaintiff a total of $4,800, calculated as 8 hours at $300 per motion, payable by Milman and his counsel of record within 20 days.