Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV10325, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV10325    Hearing Date: August 7, 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 inSpecialation (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 (which is highly encouraged).  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

MOTIONS

Defendant Antonio Villalobos (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Alma Carrera Mejia (“Plaintiff”) to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Defendant seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $560 for each motion.  No opposition has been filed.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220 requires that each answer to an interrogatory must be as “complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.)  Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300(a) permits a propounding party to move for an order compelling a further response to an interrogatory if the propounding party deems that an answer is “evasive or incomplete” or that an objection is “without merit or too general.”

Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.010(a) states that any party may obtain discovery by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010(a).)  Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310(a) permits a propounding party to move for an order compelling a further response to a request for production of documents if the propounding party deems that a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, a representation of inability to comply is “inadequate, incomplete, or evasive” or that an objection is “without merit or too general.”

Here, Defendant served his Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One on Plaintiff on February 3, 2023. (Maxwell Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s responses were initially due by March 6, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 3, Exh. B.) After Defendant granted a few extensions at the request of Plaintiff’s previous counsel, the discovery responses were ultimately due on April 4, 2023. (See Maxwell Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Exhs. B-C.) On April 4, 2023, Plaintiff served responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. (Maxwell Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. D.) While these responses lack a verification statement, Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.250 states that “[t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections” and “[t]he attorney for the responding party shall sign any responses that contain an objection.”

Now, Defendant seeks to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 through 34 and Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1 through 14 on the basis that Plaintiff’s objections are boilerplate. (See Motion at pg. 5; See generally Separate Statement.) Defendant further argues that the answers to Defendant’s special interrogatories and requests for documents are material and relevant to the issues herein and relate to non-privileged matters. (See Motion at pg. 5.) As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the instant motions are procedurally defective because Defendant failed to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) as required under the First Amended Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures. Nevertheless, because Plaintiff’s prior counsel has withdrawn due to her inability to locate Plaintiff, Defendant’s participation in an IDC would not have been productive. Thus, the Court excuses Defendant’s failure to participate in an IDC in this instance and admonishes the Defendant to abide by all relevant rules for future matters.

Where general boilerplate objections are made, courts have the authority to compel further responses (but not to find a waiver of privilege objections). (Best Products, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189.) “[W]here … the question calls for information which may or may not be privileged, the party asserting the privilege must establish its application before the interrogator is required to show more than basic discovery relevance.”  (Gonzalez v. Super. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1548-49.)

Here, Defendant has made a prima facie showing of relevance. Plaintiff has made general, boilerplate objections, and has not established the preliminary facts essential to any claim of attorney-client or work product privileges, or any violation of Plaintiff’s right to privacy.  Accordingly, the Court grants the motions to compel.

Defendant further requests monetary sanctions in connection with these motions against Plaintiff in the amount of $560.00, based on an hourly rate of $500.00 per hour.  The Court grants the request for sanctions in the amount of $310, which represents an hour of work at $250 plus the filing fee, for each motion. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders. 

Plaintiff shall pay $620 to counsel for Defendant within 30 days of notice of the Court’s order.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.