Merrill v. Laguna Sur Villas Community Assn.

Filed 3/15/06 Merrill v. Laguna Sur Villas Community Assn. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Ronald L. Bauer, Judge. Affirmed.

Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, Arthur J. Travieso and Jenny Y. Park for Defendants and Appellants.

Roger J. Agajanian for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Laguna Sur Villas Community Association and its attorneys (collectively, the Association) appeal the trial court's order issuing a monetary discovery sanction against them in the amount of $5,500. The Association challenges the order because (1) it exceeds the amount requested in the motion; (2) the interrogatories that were the subject of the sanctions were overbroad and unduly burdensome; (3) the Association never refused to provide discovery regarding what it considered to be the relevant condominium units; (4) the court denied a motion to compel further responses to a document production request in the face of objections mirroring those asserted by the Association to the interrogatories; and (5) although the motions to compel further responses to the two sets of interrogatories were virtually identical, the court imposed substantial sanctions for each.

We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing monetary sanctions, and therefore affirm.

I

Factual and Procedural Background

This case arises out of a dispute between plaintiff Hildegard Merrill and the Association regarding the repair and maintenance of Merrill's condominium and the common areas surrounding it. In her second amended complaint, Merrill alleged the Association learned of construction defects in the development and commenced a reconstruction project to remedy them. The complaint also alleged that Merrill notified the Association of water intrusion into her unit and the common areas, but that the Association failed to remedy the problem.

Merrill propounded discovery to the Association which included a document inspection demand and two sets of interrogatories. The Association objected to a majority of this discovery, and provided responses with objections to some of the requests. After an attempt at informal resolution failed, Merrill filed three motions to compel further responses to the discovery. The trial court denied Merrill's motion to compel further responses to the document demand, but granted the motions to compel further responses to the two sets of interrogatories. The court also issued monetary sanctions against both the Association and its attorneys in the amount of $3,000 for one set of interrogatories, and $2,500 for the other, for a total sanction of $5,500. The Association and its attorneys now appeal.

II

Standard of Review

Discovery sanctions over $5,000 are appealable under Code of Civil Procedure[1] section 904.1, subdivision (a).[2] (Rail-Transport Employees Assn. v. Union Pacific Motor Freight (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 469.)

We review discovery sanction orders using the deferential abuse of discretion standard, except for questions of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. (Do v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1212-1213.) Thus, we will affirm a court's sanction order unless it â€