Judge Audra Mori, Case 19STCV42460 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Joey Flowers (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against L.A. Garlic & Spice, Inc., Habib Elachkar, and Matthew Langianese for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

At this time, Defendants L.A. Garlic & Spice, Inc. and Habib Elachkar (collectively, “Defendants”) move to compel Plaintiff to serve responses to form interrogatories, set two. Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendants filed a reply.

Defendants propounded form interrogatories, set two, on Plaintiff on November 9, 2021, for which Defendants assert that only a response to No. 17.1- pertaining to concurrently served requests for admissions- were being requested. Defendants’ copy of the form interrogatories shows that a box next to Interrogatory No. 17.1 is checked, indicating that Plaintiff should respond to it. (Mot. Exh. A.) This copy of the form interrogatories is attached to, and was served on Plaintiff with, Defendants’ Motion to Compel on March 9, 2022. Plaintiff then requested a two-week extension to respond on December 16, 2021, which Defendants granted on December 21, 2021. (Opp. Exh. 2.) Two weeks after December 21, 2021, would have been January 4, 2022. No responses were provided prior to this date. On January 11, 2022, Defendants sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter unilaterally granting Plaintiff an extension to respond up to January 21, 2022. (Mot. Exh. C.)

Thereafter, on January 26, 2022, Defendants sent Plaintiff a second meet and confer letter requesting that Plaintiffs provide responses to the form interrogatories within 10 days. (Mot. Exh. E.) On this same date and in response to Defendants’ meet and confer letter, Plaintiff emailed Defendants indicating that the form interrogatories that Plaintiff received on Judicial Council form DISC-001 did not have any boxes checked to indicate the questions to which Plaintiff needed to respond, and Plaintiff requested that Defendants resend the form interrogatories. (Opp. Exh. 3.) Plaintiff provides a copy of the alleged form interrogatories showing that there are no boxes at all next to each of the interrogatories, and thus none to check to indicate for which interrogatories responses are requested. (Id. at Exh. 1.) The lack of any boxes, and thus checkmarks, could be interpreted to indicate that requests to all of the interrogatories were required. On January 27, 2022, Defendants responded to the email informing Plaintiff that Defendants checked only form interrogatory No. 17.1 and requesting responses. (Reply. Exh. F.) There is no further evidence of any meet and confer attempts.

Defendants aver that to date, Plaintiff has not served responses to form interrogatories, set two. Defendants therefore seek an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues the form interrogatories served on Plaintiff were defective because Defendants did not place a check mark on any interrogatory to indicate which interrogatory responses were required. Plaintiff contends that while Defendants informed Plaintiff that responses were demanded for form interrogatory No. 17.1, Defendants never resent the interrogatories.

However, as Defendants argue in reply, although Plaintiff asserts that the form interrogatories did not have a check mark next to any interrogatory, the evidence shows that Plaintiff never informed Defendants of any issues with the form interrogatories until after Defendants served their second meet and confer letter on Plaintiff and after the second unilateral extension to respond provided by Defendants. Notably, Plaintiff provides no explanation for why Plaintiff did not inform Defendants of the lack of checkmarks on the discovery prior to January 26, 2022. Plaintiff does not otherwise dispute that Plaintiff’s responses to the form interrogatories were untimely by this date. When Defendants informed Plaintiff that only a response to form interrogatory No. 17.1 was being requested, Plaintiff provided no further response to the meet and confer communications or the discovery. Defendants then filed this motion on March 9, 2022. To date, Plaintiff has not provided any responses to the form interrogatories.

The evidence thus shows that Defendants served the subject form interrogatories on Plaintiff on November 9, 2021, and that after Plaintiff failed to make any timely response or objection, Defendants informed Plaintiff that only a response to No. 17.1 was being requested.

Based on the foregoing, the motion to compel is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve a verified responses to Form Interrogatories, set two, No. 17.1 within twenty (20) days. (CCP § 2030.290(a), (b).)

Sanctions are mandatory. (CCP § 2030.290(c).) Defendants seek sanctions in the amount of $381.59 for the motion. The amount is reasonable and wholly supported by defense counsel’s declaration. (Mot. Hsu Decl. ¶ 8.)

Defendants seek sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record. Defendants do not describe any conduct warranting sanctions against Plaintiff personally. Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff’s attorney of record only. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendants, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $381.59, within twenty days.

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court