Judge: Andre De La Cruz, Case: 2022-01252784, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories filed by Dana Samhouri on 4/24/23

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Dana Samhouri’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a) provides: “On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete;

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

Samhouri seeks to compel Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Bin An to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 1.1 and 15.1. The interrogatories were served via email on 10/19/22. Samhouri Decl., Exh. 1. On 11/1/22, An filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which stayed discovery. See ROA 46. The anti-SLAPP motion was denied on 3/21/23. In the absence of the anti-SLAPP motion, responses would have been due on 11/22/23. However, due to the stay, responses were due 4/11/23.

On 11/21/22, An served objections only to the interrogatories. In response to each interrogatory, An responded: “Plaintiff objects on the ground that discovery is stayed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(g).” Samhouri Decl., Exh. 2.

Samhouri claims she spoke with An’s counsel on the phone on 4/10/23 (which An’s counsel denies) to inquire as to when substantive responses would be forthcoming. According to Samhouri, she was informed that counsel was working on it. Samhouri contends that, as of 4/24/23, no substantive responses had been provided.

An opposes the motion on the grounds that this is a motion to compel further responses and no separate statement was provided, in violation of CRC 3.1345(a)(1). An also opposes the motion on the grounds that Samhouri did not meet and confer with An’s counsel prior to filing the motion.

Neither of An’s arguments is well taken. In the context of this motion, the lack of separate statement does not prejudice An. Samhouri has clearly articulated her issue with the responses. Under CRC 3.1345 (and CCP §2030.300), a court may accept a concise outline of the discovery requests and each response in dispute in lieu of a separate statement. Further, Samhouri apparently made good faith attempts to meet and confer by sending a letter (albeit prematurely) on 3/10/23 and by speaking with someone at An’s counsel’s firm about the discovery. Samhouri Decl. ¶3, Exh. 1.

The judicial council form interrogatories at issue here seek basic information that Samhouri is entitled to. An does not deny that she never served substantive responses. She had nearly four months from the filing of the motion until her opposition was due, yet rather than respond to the two interrogatories at issue, she chose to oppose the motion based on technicalities. An has not provided any argument on the merits as to why she should not be compelled to provide substantive responses.

Accordingly, An is ORDERED to provide further verified responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 1.1 and 15.1 within 15 calendar days of notice of this ruling.

An is also ORDERED to pay $250 in sanctions to Samhouri within 20 calendar days of the notice of this ruling, as the Court finds there was no substantial justification for opposing this motion. Cal. Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(d). While Samhouri filed the motion in pro per, she has provided a declaration attesting that she incurred fees for attorney Ken Carlson to research, draft and provide related counseling on this motion and attempts to informally obtain the discovery responses.

Moving Party to give notice.