Judge Audra Mori, Case 21STCV28362 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Felipe Rodriguez (“Felipe”) and Angelo Rodriguez (“Angelo”), a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Felipe Rodriguez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), Aimin Lin (“Lin”), Adrian Krugliy (“Krugliy”), and Roman Pidkova (“Pidkova”) for damages arising from a four-vehicle accident.

On April 26, 2022, Uber filed the instant motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, and request for admissions (“RFAs”), set one, against Felipe, and the motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, RPDs, set one, and RFAs, set one, against Angelo.

Uber and Plaintiffs participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) concerning the discovery requests on October 21, 2022, where Plaintiffs agreed to supplement the responses by November 4, 2022. The parties were to meet and confer and file a joint statement of any remaining issues by November 30, 2022. (Min. Order, Oct. 21, 2022.) Each of the eight motions to compel further was then set for hearing for December 9, 2022.

On November 30, 2022, Uber’s counsel filed a declaration stating that Plaintiffs never provided supplemental responses, and that although Uber attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiffs about drafting a joint statement, Plaintiffs never responded. On this same date, Uber filed an IDC form providing that all issues raised in their motions remain unresolved. To date, no opposition to any of the motions has been received.

(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

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

As to responses to RPDs, CCP § 2031.310(a) provides that on receipt of a response to a request for production of documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(a) On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply:

Uber moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, Nos. 4.1, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 9.1, 9.2, and 17.1. Uber contends that the responses each contain improper objections, and that the interrogatories seek relevant information.

In response to form interrogatories 4.1, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, and 17.1, Felipe asserted objections only. It is the burden of the objecting party to support the applicability of a particular privilege. (See Denari v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1488, 1494-95.) Felipe does not oppose the instant motion, and thus, thus not establish the appropriateness of any objections asserted in the responses.

Form interrogatories 9.1 and 9.2 seek information about the damages Felipe attributes to the incident and any documents that support the damages claimed. Felipe objected to these interrogatories, and responded in relevant part, “general damages, starting from the date of the incident and ongoing, for an amount to be determined according to proof at trial,” and that “Pursuant to CCP § 2030.230, Responding Party refers Propounding Party to the medical records produce [sic] concurrently in response to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One.” As stated above, Felipe does not establish the appropriateness of any objections. Further, these responses are evasive and incomplete on their face. Regarding Felipe’s reference to CCP § 2030.230, this provision states:

If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. The responding party shall then afford to the propounding party a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them.

(Emphasis added.) Felipe fails to identify in sufficient detail the medical records that Felipe relies on in answering interrogatory 9.2 and where in the records the responsive information can be found.

Based on the foregoing, Uber’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, against Felipe is granted. Felipe is ordered to serve further responses to these interrogatories within 20 days.

Uber moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, Nos. 1, 2.5, 4.1, 6.2-6.4, 6.6, 6.7, 9.1, 9.2, and 17.1 against Angelo.

As an initial matter, form interrogatory 4.1 is not included in Uber’s separate statement concerning the instant motion against Angelo. Consequently, a further response to form interrogatory 4.1 will not be compelled.

As to form interrogatories 2.5, 6.2-6.4, 6.6, 6.7, 9.1, 9.2, and 17.1, Angelo asserted objections to each interrogatory. Angelo does not oppose this motion and does not establish the appropriateness of any objections. (Denari, 215 Cal.App.3d at 1494-95.) Thus, Angelo will be required to serve a further response without the improper objections.

Furthermore, as to form interrogatory 1, Uber contends that Angelo is a minor appearing in this action by and through a guardian ad litem, but this interrogatory does not identify the guardian ad litem that assisted in preparing the responses. If a guardian ad litem assisted Angelo in preparing the responses, that person should be identified in form interrogatory 1.

Based on the foregoing, Uber’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, against Angelo is granted as to form interrogatories 1, 2.5, 6.2-6.4, 6.6, 6.7, 9.1, 9.2, and 17.1. Angelo is ordered to serve further responses to these interrogatories within 20 days.

Uber seeks to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, Nos. 1, 3, and 5-49 against Felipe. In response to each of these special interrogatories, Felipe asserted multiple objections. Felipe does not oppose this motion and does not establish the appropriateness of any objections. (Denari, 215 Cal.App.3d at 1494-95.) Accordingly, Felipe will be required to serve a further response without the improper objections.

Additionally, in response to special interrogatories 1, 15, 18, 28, 30-31, 36, and 38, Felipe referenced certain documents allegedly produced in response to Uber’s RPDs. However, Felipe does not specify in sufficient detail as to permit Uber to locate and to identify where the answer to the interrogatories can be ascertained from within the documents.

Uber’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, against Felipe is granted. Felipe is ordered to serve further responses to these interrogatories within 20 days.

Uber moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, Nos. 1-44 against Angelo. Uber contends that in response to these interrogatories, Angelo provided incomplete and evasive responses with improper objections. Further, Uber states that Angelo did not provide a verification to the special interrogatories.

Angelo provided objection only responses to these special interrogatories. However, Angelo does not oppose the motion and fails to support the applicability of any particular privilege or objection. (See Denari, 215 Cal.App.3d at 1494-95.)

Therefore, Uber’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, against Angelo is granted. Angelo is ordered to serve further responses to these interrogatories within 20 days.

Uber moves to compel further responses to RPDs, set one, Nos. 1-29 and 31-58. In response to each of the RPDs, Felipe asserted objections to the requests. Felipe, however, does not establish the applicability of any particular privilege or objection. (See Denari, 215 Cal.App.3d at 1494-95.) Thus, Felipe will be compelled to serve further responses without the improper objections.

Moreover, to the extent that Felipe asserts in response to RPDs 7-8, 23-24, 26-27, 31, 34-35, 37, 45, and 51, “After a reasonable and diligent inquiry into this matter, Responding party does not have any responsive documents in his possession at this time. Discovery is ongoing,” these responses are not code compliant. CCP § 2031.230 provides regarding a statement of an inability to comply with a demand:

A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.

Felipe’s responses fail to specify the reason Felipe is not able to comply and fails to set forth the name of the person or organization believed to have custody or control of the documents.

Based on the foregoing, Uber’s motion to compel further responses to RPDs, set one, against Felipe is granted. Felipe is ordered to serve further responses to these RPDs within 20 days.

Uber moves to compel further responses to RPDs, set one, Nos. 1-29 and 31-51. Uber asserts that Angelo’s responses are unverified and contain improper objections. In response to each of these RPDs, Angelo asserted objection only responses. Angelo fails to oppose the motion or establish the appropriateness of any objections asserted in the responses. (See Denari, 215 Cal.App.3d at 1494-95.) Further, there is no dispute that the RPDs seek information relevant to Angelo’s claims against Uber.

Therefore, Uber’s motion to compel further responses to RPDs, set one, against Angelo is granted. Angelo is ordered to serve further responses to these RPDs within 20 days.

Uber seeks to compel further responses to RFAs, set one, Nos. 1-50 against Felipe, and to RFAs, set one, 1-40 against Angelo. In response to the subject RFAs, Felipe and Angelo each asserted objection only responses to the requests. Neither Felipe nor Angelo opposes the motions, and thus, Plaintiffs fail to support the applicability of any particular objection. (See Denari, 215 Cal.App.3d at 1494-95.)

Therefore, Uber’s motions to compel further responses to RFAs, set one, against Felipe, and to RFAs, set one, against Angelo are granted. Felipe and Angelo are each ordered to serve further responses to these RFAs within 20 days.

No sanctions are requested in connection with any of the motions, and no sanctions are awarded.

· The Court is not available to hear oral argument on this date. If the parties do not submit on the tentative and want oral argument, the hearing will have to be continued, and the parties must work with the clerk to find an available date for the continuance.

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court