JAMES CHIZINSKI ET AL VS. APHRM CORPORATION, ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Monday, September 15, 2025, line 4, PLAINTIFFS JAMES CHIZINSKI, CANH HOANG, THINH HUYNH'S Motion To Compel Defendants Sean Coletta, Shara Coletta, And S4 Developments, Llc'S Compliance With The Court'S Prior Discovery Order And Request For Sanctions (tentative ruling part 1 of 2)

Plaintiffs James Chizinski et al. seek an order compelling defendants Sean Coletta, Shara Coletta, and S4 Developments, LLC, to make further responses to certain discovery that was the subject of a previous discovery order on April 21, 2025. The court ordered relief with respect to certain discovery on April 21, 2025: further responses to specified requests, and production of all responsive documents within 60 days. On May 21, 2025, defendants served amended responses. (McCracken Dec. para. 6 & Ex. B.)

Plaintiffs contend the amended responses are deficient and they have not received all documents. A hearing is required for the purposes of document production. Defendants do not contest that they have not completed production notwithstanding the court's deadline.

With respect to the written discovery, defendants correctly note that a separate statement is required here, as it is in every motion "involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request." (Rule of Court 3.1345, subd. (a).) Defendants supplemented their responses on May 21, and Plaintiffs contend their supplemented responses are still insufficient. Thus, the motion involves the content of supplemental responses. This is more than a technicality; the separate statement informs the court as to the basis for relief as to each request at issue. The court denies the motion because it is lacking a separate statement except as to certain discovery where Plaintiffs identify their basis for relief in the body of their motion.

Form interrogatory 12.1: Plaintiffs say they are lacking witness names. Defendants point to inspectors who are identified "in the discovery." This is a deficient invocation of Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 2030.230. (All subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) Defendants shall amend.

RFPs 16 and 17: Defendants state only that "discovery is continuing." This does not satisfy their obligations under secs 2031.210, subdivision (a), 2031.220, and 2031.230. Defendants shall amend.

Defendants' response to RFP 15 is substantially compliant with the statute and no further response is ordered.

RFPs 25, 26, 27: The numbering in the document attached as Exhibit B to the McCracken declaration is confusing. The court orders Defendants to respond further to the RFP asking for "All WRITINGS related to complaints from neighbors related to the SUBJECT PROPERTY from January 1, 2018 to November 3, 2023." Other responses in this section are substantially compliant.

Special Interrogatory No. 8: Defendants' response is incomplete; they shall amend.

Special Interrogatory No. 10: Defendants' response is incomplete. Listing "carpet cleaner" and "doorbell repair" does not constitute an identification and does not give Plaintiffs information from which they can ascertain potential witnesses. Defendants shall amend.

Special Interrogatory Nos. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 81, 87, 88 and 89: Defendants do not substantively respond to interrogatory nos. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47. They shall amend.

For the following, Defendants' responses are substantially compliant and no further response is ordered: 81, 87, 88. Plaintiffs complain of Defendants' response to 89 but the court did not order a further response to 89.

For all requests where the court has ordered amendment, Defendants shall amend by October 3, 2025. The court will address sanctions at the hearing after learning more about the status of document production. (end of tentative ruling part 1 see part 2) = (301/CVA) | |