Judge Andrew E. Cooper, Case Number: 22CHCV01339, Date: 2024-07-08 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).

JULY 5, 2024

(Demand for Production of Documents, Sets One and Three; Special Interrogatories, Set One;

and Form Interrogatories, Set One)

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 22CHCV01339

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Jaime Ruth Horwitz Wotherspoon; and Donald John Wotherspoon (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

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

· Plaintiffs’ Demand for Production (“RFPs”), Set One, Nos. 1–5 and 7–10;

· Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1–5, 18–27, 34–37, and 45–48; and

· Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 12.1, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.2, 15.1, 16.9, 16.10, and 20.2–11.

Plaintiffs also seek a total of $5,950.00 to be imposed against Defendant and his counsel.

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

· Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 2–5, 18–27, 34–37, and 45–48; and

· Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 15.1, 16.9, 16.10, 20.9, 20.10, and 20.11.

The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Defendant and/or his counsel in the amount of $2100.00.

This is a personal injury action in which Plaintiffs, a married couple, allege that on 12/19/20, plaintiffs Jaime Wotherspoon and Pamela Baldwin-Lampman were standing in front of a lawfully parked truck when Defendant rear-ended the truck with his vehicle, causing the truck to run over the plaintiffs. (Compl. ¶¶ 7–9, 14–17.) On 12/8/22, Plaintiffs filed their complaint, alleging against Defendant the following causes of action: (1) Negligence; and (2) Loss of Consortium. On 5/25/23, plaintiffs Pamela Baldwin-Lampman and Richard Lampman dismissed their claims without prejudice. On 7/19/23, Defendant filed his answer. On 11/16/23, Defendant filed his amended answer.

On 7/28/23, Plaintiffs served the subject discovery requests on Defendant. (Decl. of Artur Aziev ¶ 2.) On 8/28/23, Defendant served his responses thereto. (Id. at ¶ 3.) On 11/13/23, Plaintiffs filed the instant motions to compel Defendant’s further responses to the subject discovery requests. Defendant’s oppositions and Plaintiffs’ replies were filed as follows:

On 4/10/24, the Court continued the instant motions and ordered the parties to further engage in meet and confer efforts to resolve and/or narrow all outstanding discovery issues.

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. §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2031.310, subd. (b)(2); 2016.040.)

Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel declares that on 10/16/23, 10/18/23, 10/19/23, counsel for the parties met and conferred regarding the issues raised in the instant motion, but the parties were unable to informally resolve the discovery dispute. (Aziev Decl. ¶¶ 4–8.) Following the Court’s 4/10/24 order for the parties to engage in further meet and confer efforts, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed an additional declaration stating that on 6/6/24, counsel for the parties met and conferred telephonically. (6/28/24 Aziev Decl. ¶ 10.) The parties agreed upon 6/20/24 as the deadline for Defendant to provide further discovery responses; however, no further responses have been provided to date. (Id. at ¶¶ 10–14.) 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 2031.310, subdivision (b)(2).

California law requires a responding party to respond to each request for production of documents with either a statement of compliance, a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply, or an objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

If the response includes an objection to the demand in part, it must also include a statement of compliance or noncompliance as set forth above. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240, subd. (a).) Additionally, the response must (1) identify the particular document that falls within the category of the request to which the objection is being made, and (2) expressly set forth the extent of, and specific ground for, the objection. (Id., subd. (b).)¿A propounding party may move for an order compelling further response to a request for production if it decides that “an objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (a).) The demanding party must take the initiative to obtain a judicial determination of the validity of any objection by moving to compel a further response, but the objecting party has the burden of justifying the objection. (See, e.g., Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220.)

Here, Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendant’s additional responses to RFP Nos. 1–5 and 7–10, arguing that Defendant’s responses are not code-compliant and his objections thereto are without merit. The subject requests seek “documents related to the incident, such as various reports, documents showing property damage, if any, and insurance documents concerning claims for personal injuries of the parties to the case. … [and] documents related to Defendant’s driving record.” (Pls.’ RFP1 Mot. 4:19–21.)

While Defendant argues that he provided supplemental responses on 2/20/24, with verifications served on 5/13/24, Plaintiffs maintain that “Defendant’s responses to RFP Nos. 7–9 fall short of the standard under section 2031.230, and for that reason, remain noncompliant with the Code. In addition, Defendant failed to provide any further response to RFP Nos. 1–5, and 10, which to this day rely on improper objections, including privilege objections.” (Pls.’ RFP1 Reply, 3:6–10.) Specifically, Defendant’s additional responses state that the responsive documents are not within Defendant’s possession, but failed to identify “any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230.)

The Court also notes that Defendant has wholly failed to meet his burden to justify the objections asserted in his discovery responses. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant’s initial and supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ RFP Nos. 1–5 and 7–10 are not code-compliant, and that his boilerplate objections are without merit. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiffs’ Demand for Production, Set One, Nos. 1–5 and 7–10.

Here, Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendant’s additional responses to RFP Nos. 18–32, arguing that Defendant’s responses are not code-compliant and his objections thereto are without merit. The subject requests seek “information and documents about Defendant’s cell-phone records as they relate to his reasoning skills and decision-making ability leading up to the incident and at the time of the incident.” (Pls.’ RFP3 Mot. 4:19–20.)

Here, Defendant argues that he provided supplemental responses on 3/5/24, with verifications served on 5/13/24, but Plaintiffs maintain that “Defendant failed to follow his own statement of compliance promising to produce the outstanding records” in response to RFP Nos. 18, 19, and 22–31. (Pls.’ RFP3 Reply, 4:14–15.) The Court again notes that Defendant has failed to meet his burden to justify the objections asserted in his discovery responses.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant’s initial and supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ RFP Nos. 18–32 are not code-compliant, and that his boilerplate objections are without merit. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiffs’ Demand for Production, Set Three, Nos. 18–32.

“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).)

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, Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendant’s additional responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1–5, 18–27, 34–37, and 45–48, arguing that Defendant’s responses are evasive, incomplete, and his objections are without merit. “Special Interrogatories Nos. 1–5 and 18–27 ask Defendant whether he contends that he was not responsible for causing the incident, whether he used a cell phone during the timeframe relevant to the incident, and to identify any evidence in support of his contentions.” (Pls.’ SPROG1 Mot. 8:11–13.) “Interrogatories Nos. 18–27 and 34–37 also seek a ‘yes or no’ answer as to Defendant’s use of his personal cell phone on the day of the incident at relevant times.” (Id. at 8:15–17.) “Special Interrogatories Nos. 45–48 are also contention interrogatories.” (Id. at 8:23.)

In opposition, Defendant asserts that he served supplemental responses on 2/20/24, with verifications served on 5/13/24, but Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s supplemental responses “failed to address the defects with interrogatories Nos. 2–5, 18–27, 34–37, and did not supplement any responses to Nos. 45–48.” (Defs.’ SPROG1 Reply, 2:18–19.) The Court again notes that Defendant has failed to meet his burden to justify the objections asserted in his discovery responses.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant’s initial and supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatory Nos. 2–5, 18–27, 34–37, and 45–48 are not code-compliant, and that his boilerplate objections are without merit. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 2–5, 18–27, 34–37, and 45–48.

Here, Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendant’s additional responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.1, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.2, 15.1, 16.9, 16.10, and 20.2–11. The subject interrogatories seek the identities of witnesses to the subject incident, whether Defendant conducted surveillance on any individuals involved, whether any person was cited or charged with a violation of any statute, ordinance, or regulation as a result of the subject incident, facts supporting Defendant’s affirmative defenses, whether Defendant has documents concerning Plaintiffs’ claims for personal injuries, and information about the vehicles involved in collision, location and route to which Defendant was headed, and conditions of the place of the collision.

Defendant asserts that he served supplemental responses to the subject form interrogatories on 2/20/24, with verifications served on 5/13/24, but Plaintiffs argue that “although Defendant produced further responses to some interrogatories on February 20, 2024, Defendant refused to supplement any response to [form] interrogatories Nos. 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 15.1, 16.9, 16.10, 20.9, 20.10, and 20.11.” (Defs.’ FROG1 Reply, 1:6–8.) The Court again notes that Defendant has failed to meet his burden to justify the objections asserted in his discovery responses.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant’s initial and supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 15.1, 16.9, 16.10, 20.9, 20.10, and 20.11 are not code-compliant, and that his boilerplate objections are without merit. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 15.1, 16.9, 16.10, 20.9, 20.10, and 20.11.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories [or RFPs], 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. § 2031.310, subd. (h).) 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, Plaintiffs request a total combined sum of $5,950.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant and his counsel, which encompasses: (1) 10 hours of Plaintiffs’ attorney’s time spent across all four motions; (2) an anticipated 5 hours reviewing Defendant’s oppositions and drafting Plaintiffs’ replies; and (3) an anticipated 2 hours preparing for and attending the instant hearings, at counsel’s hourly billing rate of $350.00 per hour. In granting the instant motions, the Court finds it reasonable to award Plaintiffs monetary sanctions in the amount of $2100.00. against Defendant and his counsel.

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

· Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 2–5, 18–27, 34–37, and 45–48; and

· Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 15.1, 16.9, 16.10, 20.9, 20.10, and 20.11.

The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Defendant and/or his counsel in the amount of $2100. 00 payable within 60 days.