Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV15397, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV15397    Hearing Date: July 28, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Robert Joiner (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Andrea Kyung Ah Seo (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. 

Defendant Andria Kyung Ah Seo filed this Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, set two, on August 3, 2021.  The parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) concerning the discovery on April 15, 2022.  The parties appeared at the IDC; at the conclusion of the hearing, the parties agreed further response were due by April 27, 2022, and the matter was continued to May 13, 2022.  If the parties were unable to resolve the issues in the motion, the parties were ordered to submit a Joint Stipulation re: Status of Dispute by May 5, 2022.  (Min. Order April 15, 2022.)  No joint stipulation or statement was filed prior to the May 13 hearing, but Defendant appeared at the hearing and requested a continuance. 

The matter was again continued, and on June 6, 2022, Defendant’s counsel filed a declaration in support of the motion to compel further providing that Plaintiff served additional responses to the subject form interrogatories, but that the responses remained vague and evasive.  In particular, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff merely named seven individuals without providing any contact information and did not identify which request for admission the information was responsive to.  Defendant’s counsel provides it attempted to further meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the responses, but Plaintiff’s counsel has not responded.   

Defendant filed a Notice of Continuance and proof of service for this hearing on Plaintiff on June 14, 2022.  To date, Plaintiff has not filed any opposition or response to the motion or defense counsel’s declaration.  

2. Motion to Compel Further Responses

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

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

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(CCP § 2030.300(a).)

Here, Defendant moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set two, No. 17.1, which pertains to request for admissions (“RFAs”), set one, Nos. 4, 10, 11, and 17.  Form Interrogatory 17.1 requests:

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.

(Mot. Exh. B.)  Plaintiff denied each of RFA Nos. 4, 10, 11, but Defendant contends Plaintiff did not provide a full and complete response to form interrogatory 17.1 concerning these RFAs.  Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to provide the information specifically requested by form interrogatory 17.1. 

            Following the IDC regarding this motion, Plaintiff served additional responses on Defendant for form interrogatory 17.1 in which Plaintiff listed 7 persons as “fact witness with testimony related to all causes of action and damages.”  (Gage Decl. filed June 6, 2022, Exh. A.)  Additionally, Plaintiff attached various documents “as further supplemental responses to all outstanding discovery requests associated to Form Interrogatory 17.1…”  (Id.) 

            The response does not identify which RFA the additional information is responsive to, nor does the response answer each subpart of form interrogatory 17.1.  Moreover, the response does not provide any contact information for the persons listed on the additional response, nor what RFA each person has information about.  The response, on its face, is incomplete and evasive.  (CCP § 2030.300(a)(1).)  Plaintiff does not oppose the motion or otherwise dispute the information requested by form interrogatory 17.1 is relevant and discoverable in this action.   

            Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatory, set two, is granted.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve further responses to form interrogatory, set two, No. 17.1 pertaining to RFAs Nos. 4, 10, 11, and 17 within 20 days. 

            Sanctions are mandatory unless the court finds the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.  (CCP § 2030.300(d).)  Here, Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff.  However, Defendant does not describe any conduct by Plaintiff warranting sanctions against Plaintiff directly.  Rather, the evasive and incomplete responses were prepared and served by Plaintiff’s counsel.  Defendant does not request sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel, so no sanctions are awarded.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.   

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 28^th day of July 2022