Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV02475, Date: 2024-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02475    Hearing Date: March 25, 2024    Dept: 52

Defendant EAN Holdings, LLC’s Four Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories

            Defendant EAN Holdings, LLC filed four motions to compel further responses to interrogatories.  It moves to compel each plaintiff, Rebecca Eliav and Aitan Eliav, to provide further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-20, 22-24, 26-28, 30-32, 34-36, 38-40, 42-44, 46-48, 50-52, 54-56, 58-60, 62-64, 66-68, 70-72, 74-76, 78-80, 82-84, and 86-88.  Defendant further moves to compel each plaintiff to provide further responses to form interrogatory – general, No. 17.1. 

Separate Statement

Defendant’s motions are procedurally defective because their separate statements are incomplete.  “A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.  The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)  “If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth.”  (Rule 3.1345(c)(5).) 

Defendant’s motions regarding special interrogatories concerns 22 sets of three follow-up questions to prior interrogatories.  Each trio of questions asks: (1) “If YOUR answer to interrogatory number [1, 5, 9, etc.] is in the affirmative, please identify all facts which support YOUR contention”; (2) “If YOUR answer to interrogatory number [1, 5, 9, etc.] is in the affirmative, please IDENTIFY all witnesses who support YOUR contention”; and (3) “If YOUR answer to interrogatory number [1, 5, 9, etc.] is in the affirmative, please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS which support YOUR contention.”

The responses to each trio of interrogatories depend on the prior interrogatory.  Defendant did not include those as required under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c)(5).  Defendant’s reply argues those requests are “not necessary to evaluate the propriety of the at-issue requests.”  (Reply, p. 1.)  But its separate statement argues plaintiffs’ responses are incomplete or evasive in part because “Plaintiff merely cut and pasted his/her answers regardless of the call of the question.”  To evaluate this argument, the court would be required to review the special interrogatories themselves. 

Defendant’s motions regarding form interrogatory No. 17.1 have the same defect.  No. 17.1 asks, “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,” provide four categories of information: (a) identify the request number, (b) state supporting facts, (c) identify all supporting witnesses, and (d) identify all supporting documents or tangible things. 

The responses to this interrogatory depend on each request for admission.  The separate statement indicates defendant disputes the responses as to requests for admission Nos. 1-22—but does not set forth those requests for admission.  Again, defendant’s separate statement argues, “Here, Plaintiff merely cut and pasted his/her answers to Defendant’s supporting facts, witnesses and documents special interrogatories regardless of the call of the question.” 

Substance of Responses

The court also rejects defendant’s motion on the merits.  A party propounding interrogatories may move to compel further responses when an answer “is evasive or incomplete.”  (CCP § 2030.300(a)(1).) 

Plaintiffs’ responses are not incomplete or evasive.  Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 provides, “Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.  (b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.  (c) 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.”

Defendant argues the responses are evasive or incomplete for four reasons.  First, as discussed above, it argues the responses are the same “regardless of the call of the question.”  The court cannot evaluate that argument without knowing the questions, which were not in the separate statement.  Moreover, there is nothing necessarily wrong with providing the same answers to these interrogatories.  The same facts, witnesses, and documents may support numerous contentions. 

Second, defendant argues plaintiffs summarized possible contentions or legal conclusions instead of stating facts.  Speculating or making up facts does not make the answers legally insufficient.  Being speculative or false does not make the responses “evasive or incomplete.”  (See Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 316, 333 [“serving a willfully false answer to an interrogatory” is “not specifically covered by the Civil Discovery Act”].)  That the responses may be speculative or untrue goes to their credibility, not whether they comply with the Civil Discovery Act. 

Third, defendant argues plaintiffs’ responses regarding witnesses did not state contact information or names for “Defendant’s agents and affiliated companies (and these companies’ agents), Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC and its agents, California Department of Motor Vehicles and Los Angeles Police Department.”  But the responses indicate that each plaintiff “does not know the business addresses, telephone numbers, or residence addresses of these witnesses” and that defendant, the DMV, and LAPD will know more information.  These answers adequately state plaintiffs have no personal knowledge and the information is equally available to defendant. 

Finally, defendant argues plaintiffs’ responses regarding documents speculate about documents that may exist and do not identify who possesses each document.  As discussed above, speculating does not make the responses invalid.  Identifying documents plaintiffs believe exist constitutes a good-faith effort to answer the questions.  As for failing to identify who has each document, plaintiffs’ responses adequately indicate they do not know.      

Sanctions

Plaintiffs seek monetary sanctions against defendant.  Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d) provides, “The court shall impose a monetary sanction … 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.”  Though its motions were unsuccessful, defendant made reasonable supporting arguments.  Defendant acted with substantial justification in filing these motions. 

Disposition

            Defendant EAN Holdings, LLC’s four motions to compel further responses to interrogatories are denied.