Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 07/23/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 54
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Netlinks, Inc.s (Plaintiff) motion to compel further responses from Defendant Ahmad Esmati (Defendant) to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set Two, is GRANTED as follows.
The subject discovery consisted of Special Interrogatory Nos. 18-35 and sought information related to Plaintiffs allegations of fraud against Defendant and Defendants assertions in his Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint. Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to all of the interrogatories except for No.
20. Defendants responses to the interrogatories at issue consist of unrelated and improper objections. The responses are either identical or substantially similar to one another. For example, Defendants responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 18 and 19 state:
I hereby object to response to interrogatory no. 18[/19]. My objection is based on the Lack of Privity and Parole Evidence Rule. There is absolutely no contract between the Defendants and the Plaintiff. The contract is between two LLCs (Cisnet Global IT Solutions and Netlinks Ltd) registered and licensed in Afghanistan. These two companies are independent legal entities. The Plaintiff should respect terms and conditions of the contract it signed with Cisnet Global IT Solution.
The two interrogatories asked Defendant to explain his relationship to Shahrukh Hassanzada, an individual Plaintiff alleges Defendant forwarded large amounts of money to, and Saboor Shirzad Watan Co. This latter entity relates to Defendants claim that Plaintiff hacked his emails, because Plaintiff contends that the emails it saw did not belong to Defendant but belonged to Saboor Shirzad Watan Co. Defendants responses do not relate to the interrogatories at all.
This exact same objection is repeated with most of the remaining interrogatories at issue. For Special Interrogatory Nos. 21-23, Plaintiff asserts a similarly formatted objection:
I hereby object to response to interrogatory no. 21[/22/23]. My objection is based on Statue of Fraud [sic]. Any interrogatory question representing Ahmad Farshid Ghyasi in regards to his computer trespass, harassment, defamation and fraud are in contradiction with his statement in Motion to Quash of Summons and Cross Complaint and the hearing summary of 11/14/2023.
The 11/14/2023 hearing summary also states that: ..A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits .. (
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Again, these responses are not responsive to the interrogatories.
Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (Code Civ. Proc. §
34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 07/23/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 54
2030.220(a).) Here, Defendants responses are not straightforward at all. Moreover, the objections asserted are not proper discovery objections, and they are thus overruled. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff also seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,260, representing two hours of attorney time at $600 per hour plus the $60 motion filing fee. The Court concludes that this amount is reasonable, and there is no showing that Defendant has acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(d).) Accordingly, Plaintiffs sanctions request is GRANTED.
Defendant shall serve verified further responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 18, 19, and 21-35 by no later than August 16, 2024 or a later date agreed upon in writing by the parties. Sanctions in the amount of $1,260 shall be paid by no later than August 23, 2024, and if not paid by that date Plaintiff may prepare for the Court's signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 07/23/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 54
Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.