Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV39920, Date: 2024-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV39920    Hearing Date: March 25, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and Monetary Sanctions.

BACKGROUND

CHRISTINE WELLS (“Plaintiff”) brings this Unruh Act case against FUTURA BUS NET INC. (“Defendant”), based on Defendant’s alleged refusal to allow Plaintiff to sit in the handicapped section of its bus.

Plaintiff has filed a motion captioned as one compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories and sanctions. However, the memorandum of points and authorities seeks an order compelling initial responses to Plaintiff’s second set of special interrogatories (not further responses). Defendant opposes the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to compel initial discovery responses need only show that discovery was properly served on the opposing party, the time to respond expired, and no response was served.  Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06; Code Civ. Proc., §§2030.290. A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show meeting and conferring and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 404.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff and Defendant agree that Defendant has not served responses to Plaintiff’s second set of special interrogatories. Plaintiff has adequately shown that she served the interrogatories and to date, has not received a response. Defendant’s suggestion that it is absolved from serving responses to the interrogatories because the second set of interrogatories is largely duplicative of the first set of interrogatories is unconvincing. The sets differentiate between requesting information regarding a “bus” versus a “shuttle” and so are not actually duplicative. And any objection that the requests are unreasonably duplicative or unduly burdensome would not be well-taken because Defendant could easily adopt its responses to set one to respond to set two.

To the extent Plaintiff also seeks an order for further responses to her first set of special interrogatories, such a request fails because she did not file a separate statement. In any event, the responses to the first set of interrogatories are compliant. Two interrogatories contain incomplete sentences, and so Defendant properly indicated that uncertainty is involved. Second, Defendant substantively responded to the remaining interrogatories, after stating that they are inapplicable because no “bus” was involved.

As for sanctions, considering the unusually debatable aspects of this matter, the Court imposes no monetary sanctions, it finding substantial justification for Defendant’s position.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted as to compelling initial responses to special interrogatories, set two. The request for sanctions is denied. On or before 4/12/24, Defendant shall serve initial verified responses to the second set of special interrogatories, without objections.