Judge Anne Hwang, Case Number: 22STCV35673, Date: 2024-10-29 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 November 9, 2022, Plaintiff Juan Pablo Alcantar (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Alexander Escalante (“Defendant”) for negligence related to a motor vehicle accident.

On May 13, 2024, Defendant propounded Specially-Prepared Interrogatories, Set Two on Plaintiff. (Young Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Defendant granted an extension until June 28, 2024. (Id. ¶ 5, Exh. C.) Plaintiff served responses on June 30, 2024. (Id. ¶ 6, Exh. D.) The responses contained objections, despite being untimely, and Defendant found the answers to be incomplete. The parties met and conferred. On July 29, 2024, Plaintiff served supplemental responses. (Id. ¶ 10, Exh. F.) An informal discovery conference (“IDC”) was held on August 6, 2024.

On September 6, 2024, Plaintiff served further supplemental responses, but none for numbers 28, 29, 35, 36, 37. (Young Decl. ¶ 15-16, Exh. H.) The parties mutually agreed to extend the time to file a motion to compel further to September 25, 2024.

On September 23, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two. Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions. Plaintiff opposes and seeks monetary sanctions. Defendant replies.

On August 6, 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, 8/6/24.)

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, Defendant seeks to compel further responses to Specially-Prepared Interrogatories, Set Two, numbers 28, 29, 35, 36, 37. However, Defendant’s separate statement only discusses interrogatories numbers 35, 36, and 37. Therefore, the Court will only address those interrogatories.

Number 35 asks: “IDENTIFY your friend Ricardo who was with you at the scene of the incident.” Number 36 asks: “IDENTIFY your friend Marlon who was with you at the scene of the incident.” Number 37 asks: “IDENTIFY your friend Alex who was with you at the scene of the incident.”

Plaintiff’s supplemental responses in July 2024 to these interrogatories state the following: “After diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff does not have their contact information and is unable to respond to this request. As discovery and investigation are continuing, Responding Party reserves the right amend this response should additional information and/or facts be ascertained.”

In opposition, Plaintiff declares that, as stated in his deposition, he lost contact with the three friends who were with him at the time of the subject incident. (Alcantar Decl. ¶ 2.) He further states: “I inquired with friends, friends of friends, neighbors, and even went to my old high school to request transcripts in order to provide as much information to Defendant as possible. Unfortunately, I simply could not get any further contact information for Alex, Ricardo or Marlon. In fact, it should be noted that Alex is the friend with whom I went to school and was the closest friend to me of the three. So, once he moved away, I just fell out of touch with the other two.” (Id. ¶ 4-7.)

In reply, Defendant argues that even if the effort described in Plaintiff’s declaration is satisfactory, it must be stated in the supplemental response.

However, based on Plaintiff’s declaration, it appears a reasonable effort was made to discover contact information of the alleged witnesses. Therefore, Plaintiff appears to have met his responsibility under section 2030.220(c).[1] Accordingly, the motion to compel further is denied.

Nevertheless, the Court finds that Defendant acted with substantial justification based on an apparent misunderstanding of the IDC, and declines to award monetary sanctions.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to Specially-Prepared Interrogatories, Set Two.

[1] At the IDC, the parties agreed that they would further meet and confer about what would constitute a reasonable and diligent search and inquiry, and if there remained a dispute, Plaintiff would need to justify why the search conducted was reasonable and diligent in response to any motion. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220(c) does not appear to require that such search be explained in the responses themselves.

DEPT:	32
HEARING DATE:	October 29, 2024
CASE NUMBER:	22STCV35673
MOTIONS:	Compel Further Responses to Specially-Prepared Interrogatories, Set Two
MOVING PARTY:	Defendant Alexander Escalante
OPPOSING PARTY:	Plaintiff Juan Pablo Alcantar