Judge Andrew E. Cooper, Case Number: 22AVCV00163, Date: 2024-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

(Form Interrogatories, Set Four; and Requests for Admission, Set Three)

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 22AVCV00163

RELIEF REQUESTED: Orders compelling Defendant’s further responses to the following discovery requests:

· Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (“RFAs”), Set Three, Nos. 53, 57–59, 61–70, 72, and 74–85.

Plaintiff also seeks to recover a total of $3,150.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant or her counsel.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motions are granted. Defendant ordered to provide further code-compliant, objection-free responses to the subject discovery requests within 30 days. The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Defendant’s counsel in the amount of $700.00.

This is a personal injury action in which Plaintiff alleges that on 7/15/21, she was injured as a result of an automobile collision between the vehicle she was driving and the one driven by Defendant. (Compl. ¶¶ 10–13.) On 3/10/22, Plaintiff filed her complaint, alleging against Defendant a sole cause of action for Negligence. On 6/6/22, Defendant filed her answer.

On 1/22/24, Plaintiff served Defendant with her Form Interrogatories, Set Four, and Requests for Admission, Set Three. (Ex. 1 to Decl. of Misak Chanchikyan.) On 3/18/24, Defendant served her responses thereto. (Ex. 2 to Chanchikyan Decl.) On 3/25/24, Defendant served further responses to the subject discovery requests. (Ex. 3 to Chanchikyan Decl.)

On 6/7/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set Four, Nos. 16.2–16.8, and RFAs, Set Three, Nos. 53, 57–59, 61–70, 72, and 74–85. On 8/14/24 and 8/22/24, Defendant filed her oppositions thereto. On 8/28/24, Plaintiff filed her replies.

A motion to compel further discovery responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration stating “facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2033.290, subd. (b)(1); 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2016.040.)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that on 4/19/24, he sent Defendant’s counsel a meet-and-confer letter raising the issues discussed herein. (Ex. 4 to Chanchikyan Decl.) Counsel for the parties discussed deadline extensions for the service of supplemental responses, but were unable to informally resolve the issues. (Ex. 5 to Chanchikyan Decl.) Therefore, the Court finds that counsel has satisfied the preliminary meet and confer requirement under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (b)(1) and 2033.290, subdivision (b)(1).

“The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: (1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered; (2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings; or (3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.” (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) “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. § 2030.220.) “If an objection is made to an interrogatory or to a part of an interrogatory, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated.” (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.240, subd. (b).)

“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the … party to whom the interrogatories are directed … any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.090, subd. (a).) A propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses to interrogatories if 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set Four, Nos. 16.2–16.8 seek Defendant’s answers regarding the causation of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages by the subject incident, to which Defendant served objection-only responses. (Exs. 1 and 3 to Chanchikyan Decl.) Plaintiff argues that further responses to the subject interrogatories are warranted because Defendant’s objections based on attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine are meritless. “Here, Defendant has failed to meet her burden by refusing to provide preliminary facts and a description of the information she is withholding so Plaintiff can determine whether the information being withheld is actually privileged.” (Pl.’s FROG Mot. 3:17–19.)

Defendant argues in opposition that she “will provide verified substantive responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Four) No. 16.2-16.8 prior to the hearing of the motion. The responses are already in Plaintiff’s possession and thus Plaintiff’s motion is moot.” (Def.’s FROG Opp. 2:11–13.) However, Plaintiff argues in reply that the motion is not moot because “as of the date of filing this reply, Defendant has not served Plaintiff with substantive responses.” (Pl.’s FROG Reply 1:5–6.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant’s objections to the subject interrogatories are without merit, and Defendant has failed to supplement her deficient responses. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set Four, Nos. 16.2–16.8.

California law requires a responding party to respond to each propounded request for admission with either a substantive answer or an objection to the particular request. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2033.210, subd. (b).) Each substantive answer must: “(1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220, subd. (b).) “If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (Id. at subd. (c).)

A propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses to requests for admission if any of the following apply: “(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete; or (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290, subd. (a).)¿

Here, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s further responses to her RFAs, Set Three, Nos. 53, 57–59, 61–70, 72, and 74–85, which “seek admissions regarding the injuries Plaintiff sustained from the subject collision.” (Pl.’s RFA Mot. 3:16–17.) “In response to each of these requests, Defendant claims an inability to admit or deny due to insufficient knowledge or information. However, Discovery has been ongoing for nearly two years, providing Defendant ample opportunity to obtain information on Plaintiff’s injuries, which are documented in readily available medical records.” (Id. at 3:17–20.) Plaintiff further argues that Defendant’s objections based on attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine are meritless because “responding to discovery regarding Plaintiff’s injuries do not pertain to communications between Defendant and her counsel, nor does it require the disclosure of counsel’s mental impressions or opinions of the case. Rather, these requests pertain specifically to fact-based issues on the case, that if admitted, would save the Court and parties time and resources should the case proceed to trial.” (Id. at 4:20–23.)

Defendant argues in opposition that in her 3/25/24 further responses to the subject RFAs, “Defendant complied with the Code’s requirement of providing a complete and straightforward answer to Requests for Admission Nos. 53, 57–59, 61–70, 72, and 74–85. Defendant clearly specified lack of sufficient information or knowledge as she understood it. No further responses are necessary to these requests because Defendant already provided Code-compliant responses to the same.” (Def.’s RFA Opp. 5:14–18.)

Plaintiff disagrees, arguing in reply that “Defendant failed to state that a ‘reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable [Defendant] to admit the matter.’ …This is extremely concerning given the amount of discovery that has already taken place, including the deposition of Plaintiff, discovery responses from Plaintiff, and multiple defense medical examinations.” (Pl.’s RFA Reply 1:19–23, citing Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220, subd. (c).) “Despite the extensive discovery already conducted, Defendant attempts to justify their refusal to provide further responses by claiming that ‘discovery is still ongoing’ and that a neuropsychological Independent Medical Examination is still needed.” (Id. at 2:17–19.)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendant’s responses to the subject RFAs are deficient because Defendant fails to state that “a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220, subd. (c).) The Court also finds unpersuasive the assertion that Defendant lacks the information necessary to admit or deny the subject requests, based on the extensive discovery efforts already taken in this action. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to her RFAs, Set Three, Nos. 53, 57–59, 61–70, 72, and 74–85.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a [request or interrogatory], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290, subd. (d).) Additionally, “the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiff requests a total combined sum of $3,150.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant or her counsel, accounting for a total of (1) 5 hours of Plaintiff’s attorney’s time spent preparing the instant motions; (2) 2 hours reviewing Defendant’s oppositions and preparing replies; and (3) 2 hours appearing at the instant hearings, at counsel’s hourly billing rate of $350.00 per hour. (Chanchikyan Decl. ¶¶ 6–9.)

In granting the instant motions, the Court finds it reasonable to impose $700.00.in monetary sanctions against Defendant’s counsel.

The motions are granted. Defendant ordered to provide further code-compliant, objection-free responses to the following discovery requests within 30 days:

· Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (“RFAs”), Set Three, Nos. 53, 57–59, 61–70, 72, and 74–85.

The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Defendant’s counsel in the amount of $700.00, payable within 45 days.