Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV38290, Date: 2023-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38290    Hearing Date: October 23, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On October 18, 2021, Plaintiff Xiaojing Liu (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Rafael Guadalupe Badilla-Acosta, Heavy Lane Transport, and Does 1 to 10 for injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

Defendant Rafael Badilla Acosta (Defendant) provided initial responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One on January 27, 2023. (Izadian Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Special Interrogatory number four and fifteen.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(a) provides that “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. 

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

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be accompanied by a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 (a)(2).)

Sanctions are mandatory against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300 (d).)

MEET AND CONFER

The parties attended an informal discovery conference with a prior judicial officer on June 14, 2023. (Izadian ¶ 8–9.) Although a resolution was not reached, the parties have demonstrated a sufficient good faith attempt to resolve the issue.

ANALYSIS

Special Interrogatory, Set One, number four asks: “Do YOU take responsibility for the SUBJECT INCIDENT?”

Defendant responded with: “Objection is interposed on the grounds the interrogatory is vague and overly broad, and Plaintiff’s subjective use of the words “take responsibility” is undefined ambiguous. Subject to, and without waiving or limiting the foregoing objection, this party further responds: He does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond to the question of whether he is responsible for the subject accident, and he does not believe that the information is available by a good faith inquiry to other natural persons or organizations. Investigation and discovery are continuing.”

Special Interrogatory, Set One, number fifteen asks: “If YOU contend YOU are not responsible for causing the SUBJECT INCIDENT, please state all facts that support this contention.”

Defendant responded with: “Objection is interposed on the grounds the interrogatory is vague and overly broad, and Plaintiff’s subjective use of the words “take responsibility” is undefined ambiguous. Subject to, and without waiving or limiting the foregoing objection, this party further responds: He does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond to the question of whether he is responsible for the subject accident, and he does not believe that the information is available by a good faith inquiry to other natural persons or organizations. Investigation and discovery are continuing.”

Plaintiff argues Defendant has the information to respond to interrogatories four and fifteen because he was present at the accident and deposed Plaintiff on June 8, 2023. Therefore, he should have information to respond fully. Defendant contends the interrogatories call for an opinion and that Defendant cannot be forced to render an opinion in this case. Defendant also argues that Defendant’s deposition, taken on September 20, 2023, renders this motion moot since Plaintiff was given the opportunity to investigate the subject of the given interrogatories.

The Court agrees that the interrogatories are not vague, ambiguous, or overly broad. Moreover, the Court disagrees with Defendant’s assertion that “plaintiff mistakenly believes that defendant must have an opinion, or can be compelled to have an opinion, on whether he is the cause of the accident.” (Opposition at p. 6.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010 plainly permits questions that call for an answer involving “an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.” (See also Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1261 [“The information is clearly discoverable when sought by written discovery.”].) Finally, Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff recently took Defendant’s deposition is also without merit. (Opposition at p. 7.) Interrogatories, rather than a deposition, are the proper form of discovery to seek the information requested.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Xiaojing Liu’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One. Defendant shall serve further responses within 30 days.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.