Judge Anne Hwang, Case Number: 22STCV21387, Date: 2024-05-29 Tentative Ruling

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.

On June 30, 2022, Plaintiff Evelyn Arias (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Gail Rose Kelch (“Defendant”) for negligence related to a motor vehicle accident.

On December 18, 2023, Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories, Set Two on Defendant. (Hakhamzadeh Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. B.) Defendant served responses on February 2, 2024. (Id. ¶ 9, Exh. C.) The parties met and conferred and participated in an informal discovery conference (“IDC”) on April 17, 2024.

On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, numbers 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, 16.9, 16.10, and 17.1 on the basis that the responses are evasive, and the objections are without merit.[1] Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions. Defendant opposes and Plaintiff replies.

On April 17, 2024, the parties appeared for a scheduled IDC pursuant to the Court’s Eighth Amended Standing Order. The issues were deemed unresolved. Therefore, the IDC requirement has been met. (Min. Order, 4/17/24.)

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:¿

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

The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(b)(1).) “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).)¿¿

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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. § 2030.300(d).)¿¿¿

“If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(c).)

Here, Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, numbers 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, 16.9, 16.10, and 17.1.

In opposition, Defendant argues this motion is moot because after the IDC, she provided further/supplemental responses to numbers 16.2 to 16.6 and 17.1 on May 13, 2024. (Opp., 4; Figueroa Decl. ¶ 9, Exh. C.) Defendant contends that numbers 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 were not discussed during meet and confer efforts and so Defendant assumed the responses were adequate. (Figueroa Decl. ¶ 12.) Defendant asserts that after serving these responses, Plaintiff has refused to specify which issues are being withdrawn from this motion, and which are outstanding. (Id. ¶ 10.)

In reply, Plaintiff asserts the supplemental responses provided by Defendant are still non-compliant.

Numbers 16.2 to 16.6 seek facts, persons with knowledge of said facts, and identifying documents in support, regarding: whether plaintiff was injured in the incident; whether plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the incident; whether a provider furnished care for injuries not due to the incident; whether medical costs were unreasonable or not necessary; and whether the loss of earnings claim is unreasonable or not caused by the incident.

Defendant’s initial and supplemental responses state she disputes causation and treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries, and that the accident did not create forces sufficient to cause Plaintiff’s injuries. To support this contention, Defendant lists Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s treating physicians and defense experts to be designated later. Plaintiff argues that since her defense medical examination took place on November 2, 2023 with Dr. Stephen Mikulak, M.D., Defendant is in a position to provide more complete responses. The Court agrees that Defendant’s responses are not supported by specific facts nor identify a specific person with personal knowledge of the fact. Therefore, they do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220(c).

Therefore, the motion to compel further is granted for numbers 16.2 to 16.6.

Numbers 16.9 and 16.10 ask for documents related to personal injuries claimed by Plaintiff before the incident and past or present conditions not previously identified by Plaintiff. Defendant asserted the attorney work product doctrine, but also stated the information was equally available to Plaintiff. Since these interrogatories seek information about Plaintiff, the Court agrees that the information is equally available. Therefore, the motion to compel further responses to numbers 16.9 and 16.10 is denied.

“Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the number of the request; (b) state all facts upon which you base your response; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.”

Plaintiff argues that Requests for Admissions (“RFA”) numbers 21–29, 31, 33–43 are at issue. Reviewing the initial and supplemental responses, the Court finds that Defendant has either stated that she made a reasonable inquiry into the matter and the information is insufficient or has provided the names and addresses of persons with knowledge. (See Figueroa Decl., Exh. C.) Therefore, the responses are sufficient. Though Plaintiff argues Defendant has sufficient information to supply further responses, Plaintiff fails to show how that information is not equally available her. (See Pl. Exh A, Defense Medical Examination Report.)

Both parties seek monetary sanctions against each other. However, seeing that the motion is granted in part and denied in part, the Court declines to award sanctions.

The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, numbers 16.2 to 16.6. The remainder are denied. Defendant shall serve further responses within 30 days.

[1] Plaintiff did not state which interrogatories are at issue in the Notice of Motion. Instead, the interrogatories at issue are set forth in the Separate Statement.

DEPT:	32
HEARING DATE:	May 29, 2024
CASE NUMBER:	22STCV21387
MOTIONS:	Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two
MOVING PARTY:	Plaintiff Evelyn Arias
OPPOSING PARTY:	Defendant Gail Rose Kelch