Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV39935, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39935    Hearing Date: October 27, 2022    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

Plaintiff Maria G. Hernandez’s Motions to Compel Further Responses by Defendant Ricardo Montano to: (1) Form Interrogatories; (2) Special Interrogatories; and (3) Requests for Production

Plaintiff Maria G. Hernandez moves to compel defendant Ricardo Montano to served further responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production. After plaintiff filed these motions, Montano served supplemental responses.

Form Interrogatories

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories – general, Nos. 15.1 and 17.1. A party propounding interrogatories may move to compel further responses when an answer “is evasive or incomplete” or “[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (CCP § 2030.300(a).)

No 15.1 asked Montano to identify each denial or affirmative defense in his answer and: (a) state all supporting facts, (b) identify all witnesses with knowledge of those facts, and (c) identify all documents that support each denial or affirmative defense. He responded, “I am in process of finding out more information. Those affirmative defenses were raised to preserve my right at the time of trial. I will amend responses when I have more information.” His supplemental response added only, “I do not have any other information at this time.”

Rather than being evasive or incomplete, Montano’s response amounts to an admission that he has no facts, witnesses, or documents in support of his answer. The court cannot order him to concoct answers he does not have. Montano’s answer is a factually devoid discovery response, which plaintiff can use against him. (See Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 590.)

No. 17.1 asked Montano to (a) identify requests for admission he did not admit, (b) state supporting facts, (c) identify all witnesses with knowledge of those facts, and (d) identify all supporting documents.

Montano responded jointly to parts (b) through (d): “Plaintiff came to my office to sign the deed in December 26, 2016. She signed the deed and placed her thumb and her signature on my notary book. I believe Victor Mendoza was present on that day. She signed the deed on her own consent and voluntarily. It did not look like she was pushed to sign the deed. I witnessed her sign my book and the deed. My notary book and her thumb print proves the above.”

Though Montano did not separate the responses into parts (b), (c), and (d), his responses are not incomplete or evasive. The narrative suffices to answer part (b). He states the witnesses are plaintiff and Victor Mendoza, which answers part (c). Finally, Montano answers part (d) by identifying his notary book and plaintiff’s thumb print as the documents supporting his responses.

Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 3 and 6, which asked Montano to “identify” witnesses, including by providing their addresses and phone numbers. Montano’s initial responses included the name “Amparo Cortes” but did not state Cortes’s address or phone number. His supplemental responses state he does not have Amparo Cortes’s address or phone number.

In the reply, plaintiff argues the response is not true: “Ricardo admits that he notarized a deed for Amparo. During that notarization, he would have been provided with Amparo's address, which he has failed to provide, and states that he does not have his telephone or address.” (Reply, p. 2.) Assuming plaintiff is right, that would make the responses false—not evasive or incomplete. Montano gave direct answers to the questions. Whether his answers are true is a matter of his credibility, not the sufficiency of his responses.

Requests for Production

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for production Nos. 3, 5, and 7. A party propounding requests for production may move to compel further responses if “[a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete,” “[a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive,” or “[a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (CCP § 2031.310(a).) Responses to requests for production must include a statement of compliance (CCP § 2031.220), a representation of inability to comply (CCP § 2031.230), objections (CCP § 2031.240), or a combination of those three responses.

Montano’s responses to Nos. 3, 5, and 7 do not include a complete statement of compliance with the demands. His responses identify various documents Montano agreed to produce (the deeds and portions of his notary book), but they do not state Montano agreed to produce “all documents or things in the demanded category that are in [his] possession, custody, or control … and to which no objection is being made.” (CCP § 2031.220.) A response must include that language because it states under oath not only that the responding party will produce specified documents, but also that the responding party is not withholding any responsive documents.

For No. 7, Montano also made a meritless objection. No. 7 asked for his “notary book for the period of April 1, 2016 through and including the date of production.” Montano objected that the request is overbroad and stated he would only produce “the relevant section of my book related to this transaction.”

Montano’s entire notary book from April 1, 2016 to the present is discoverable. “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action… if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. … Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (CCP § 2017.010.)

Though the entire notary book may ultimately not be relevant or admissible as evidence, requesting it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including the identity and location of people with knowledge of relevant facts or information about documents that may assist plaintiff in preparing for trial. Information about other transactions could prove useful to plaintiff’s case. For example, plaintiff may learn Montano’s notary book shows he has been involved in other transactions with parties or witnesses in this case. Plaintiff is not required to rely on Montano’s assertion that he has produced all relevant sections of his notary book.

Montano’s objection is overruled.

Sanctions

Plaintiff moves for $1,685 in sanctions on each of the three motions. “Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery” (CCP § 2023.010(e)) and “[m]aking an evasive response to discovery” (CCP § 2023.010(f)) are misues of the discovery process subject to monetary sanctions. “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though… the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Montano acted with substantial justification and sanctions would not be just under the circumstances. Montano’s initial response to form interrogatory No. 2.3 was incomplete because it did not provide his driver’s license number, date of issuance, and restrictions. But his responses to the other two disputed interrogatories were adequate.

Though Montano’s initial responses to special interrogatories Nos. 3 and 6 may have been evasive or incomplete, the court finds he acted with substantial justification and sanctions would not be just under the circumstances.

As for the requests for production, though Montano’s statements of compliance were incomplete, he agreed to produce documents and responded in good faith. Montano’s objection to No. 7 was unsuccessful, but it was reasonable. Demanding six years of his notary book is a broad request. A different court may have sustained that objection.

Disposition

Plaintiff Maria G. Hernandez’s motion to compel further responses by Ricardo Montano to form interrogatories – general is denied.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses by Ricardo Montano to special interrogatories is denied.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses by Ricardo Montano to requests for production is granted. Defendant Ricardo Montano is ordered to provide further verified responses to request Nos. 3, 5, and 7 without objections and with complete statements of compliance under Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.220 within 20 days. Montano is ordered to produce his entire notary book from April 1, 2016, to the present within 20 days.