Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV15944, Date: 2024-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15944    Hearing Date: October 25, 2024    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Glovis America, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to (1) Form Interrogatories, (2) Special Interrogatories, and (3) Requests for Production

(1 & 2) Form and Special Interrogatories

            Plaintiff Glovis America, Inc. moves to compel defendant Haravinder Singh to provide further responses to form interrogatories – general, Nos. 8.4, 8.7, 8.8, 15.1, 17.1, and 50.2.  Plaintiff also moves to compel Singh to provide further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 1-24.  A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories when an answer “is evasive or incomplete” (CCP § 2030.300(a)(1)) or an objection “is without merit or too general” (id., subd. (a)(3)).

A. Evasive or Incomplete Responses

            Singh gave evasive or incomplete responses to the form interrogatories.  “If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.”  (CCP § 2030.220(b).)  “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.”  (Id., subd. (c).)

Form interrogatories Nos. 8.4 and 8.7 ask Singh to state his monthly income at the time of the incident, the total income he has lost to date, and how he calculated those amounts.  Substantively, Singh responded, “Responding Party requires a complete accounting of the credit card transactions processed by Glovis America, Inc. to determine how much if its income has been improperly withheld and improperly recorded.”  He did not state he lacks personal knowledge to answer at all and did not state he made a good faith effort to obtain additional information by inquiring of others.  The answers are evasive and incomplete.  

No. 8.8 asks Singh if he will lose future income as a result, and if so, several follow-up questions.  Substantively, he responded, “Responding Party will continue to lose income as long as Glovis America, Inc. improperly withholds its credit card revenue. To analyze the impact of Glovis America, Inc.’s actions on Responding Party’s future income, Responding Party requires a complete accounting of the credit card transactions processed by Glovis America, Inc.”  He did not answer the subparts and did not make any “estimate” of the amount as required by No. 8.8(b).  Again, he did not state he lacks personal knowledge to answer at all and did not state he made a good faith effort to obtain additional information by inquiring of others.  This response is evasive and incomplete.  

Nos. 15.1 asks Singh to state all facts, identify all witnesses, and identify all documents supporting the denials in his answer.  Substantively, he responded that he lacked sufficient information to respond and reserved the right to amend it.  He did not state he lacks personal knowledge to answer at all or that he made a good faith effort to obtain additional information.  He also did not answer the subparts.

Nos. 17.1 asks Singh to state all facts, identify all witnesses, and identify all documents supporting his responses to the requests for admission.  His substantive responses did not answer the question’s subparts.  He did not identify any witnesses or documents.

No. 50.2 asks, “Was there a breach of any agreement alleged in the pleadings?  If so, for each breach describe and give the date of every act or omission that you claim is the breach of the agreement.”  Substantively, Singh responded, “Yes, Responding Party alleges that Plaintiff, Glovis America, Inc. breached the RPSA numerous times during the time period relevant to this matter.  Plaintiff, Glovis America, Inc., alleges that Responding Party breached the RPSA numerous times during the time period relevant to this matter, though Responding Party denies all such allegations.”  The response is evasive and incomplete because it does not specify the dates of each breach or explain what acts or omissions breached the contract. 

B. Objections

            Singh also made meritless objections to the form and special interrogatories.  When a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories, he “waives … any objection to the interrogatories.”  (CCP § 2030.290(a).)  Singh did not serve timely responses to the form interrogatories or special interrogatories.  Plaintiff served them on March 26, 2024.  (Choi Decls., ¶ 2.)  Plaintiff agreed to extend the deadline to respond to May 27.  (Id., ¶ 3, Ex. B.)  Singh served responses on May 29.  (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. C.)  The responses to the form interrogatories include numerous objections.  The responses to the special interrogatories consist solely of objections.  Singh waived those objections because he did not serve timely responses.  Plaintiff is entitled to responses without objections.

            Singh also does not justify any of his objections on the merits.  Generally, after the requesting party moves to compel further responses, the responding party bears the burden of justifying its objections.  (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 417, 441.)  Singh did not file a timely opposition to this motion.

            Singh’s objections to form interrogatories Nos. 8.4, 8.7, 8.8, 15.1, 17.1, and 50.2 and his objections to special interrogatories Nos. 1-24 are overruled.

(3) Requests for Production

Plaintiff Glovis America, Inc. moves to compel defendant Haravinder Singh to provide further responses to requests for production Nos. 1-56.  As with the interrogatories, plaintiff served them on March 26, and agreed to extend the deadline to respond to May 27.  (Choi Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, Exs. A-B.)  Singh served responses on May 29.  (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. C.)  The responses consist solely of objections.  Singh waived any objection because he did not serve timely responses.  Plaintiff is entitled to responses without objections.

Singh also did not justify any of his objections on the merits.  He did not file a timely opposition to this motion. 

Singh’s objections to requests for production Nos. 1-56 are overruled.

Sanctions

On the motion regarding form interrogatories, plaintiff moves for $2,682 in sanctions against Singh and his counsel of record.  On the motion regarding special interrogatories, plaintiff moves for $3,714 in sanctions.  On the motion regarding requests for production, plaintiff moves for $5,808 in sanctions.  “Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery” is a misuse of the discovery process subject to monetary sanctions.  (CCP § 2023.010(e).)  Singh made meritless objections to these discovery requests.  He acted without substantial justification.  Sanctions are just under the circumstances.  Plaintiff reasonably incurred the expenses it claims.

Disposition   

Plaintiff Glovis America, Inc.’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is granted.  Defendant Haravinder Singh is ordered to serve further verified responses without objections to form interrogatories – general Nos. 8.4, 8.7, 8.8, 15.1, 17.1, and 50.2 within 30 days.  Defendant Haravinder Singh and his counsel of record, Thomas P. Bleau, are ordered to pay plaintiff $2,682 in sanctions within 30 days.

 Plaintiff Glovis America, Inc.’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is granted.  Defendant Haravinder Singh is ordered to serve further verified responses without objections to special interrogatories Nos. 1-24 within 30 days.  Defendant Haravinder Singh and his counsel of record, Thomas P. Bleau, are ordered to pay plaintiff $3,714 in sanctions within 30 days.

Plaintiff Glovis America, Inc.’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production is granted.  Defendant Haravinder Singh is ordered to serve further verified responses without objections to requests for production Nos. 1-56 within 30 days.  Defendant shall produce all responsive documents concurrently with his written responses.  Defendant Haravinder Singh and his counsel of record, Thomas P. Bleau, are ordered to pay plaintiff $5,808 in sanctions within 30 days.

Defendant Haravinder Singh and his counsel of record, Thomas P. Bleau, are jointly and severally liable for all sanctions.