Judge Audra Mori, Case 21STCV28362 2023-01-11 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.

On December 8, 2022, one day before the December 9, 2022 hearing, Plaintiffs filed an omnibus opposition to Uber’s eight motions to compel further responses. Due to the Court’s unavailability to hear the motions on December 9, 2022, the motions were continued to January 11, 2023. Thereafter, Uber filed a reply asserting that Plaintiffs’ opposition should not be considered because it was untimely filed and arguing that Uber’s motions should be granted.

Plaintiffs untimely filed, without explanation, the opposition only one day before the prior hearing date. However, because the hearing was continued, and because Uber was able to file a reply addressing the opposition, the Court will consider the opposition. Plaintiffs’ counsel is admonished that failing to timely file papers in the future may result in the Court disregarding them.

In their opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Uber fails to show it is entitled to further responses, and that Uber fails to address Plaintiffs’ objections asserted to the discovery requests. Further, Plaintiffs contend that the discovery requests are fatally defective, and that Uber’s separate statements filed with the motions do not comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345. Plaintiffs fail to provide any reasons as to why they did not participate in timely drafting a joint statement as ordered by the Court.

(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 motion to compel further responses to RPDs “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Id. at § 2031.310(b)(1).)

(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:

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a)(1)-(3) require the moving party to file a separate statement with a motion to compel further responses.

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. Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference. The separate statement must include--for each discovery request (e.g., each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested--the following:

(2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers;

(3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute;

(4) If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it;

(5) 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; and

(6) If the pleadings, other documents in the file, or other items of discovery are relevant to the motion, the party relying on them must summarize each relevant document.

Here, Plaintiffs contend that Uber’s separate statements fail to sufficiently articulate a reason why further responses should be compelled to each discovery request. However, the separate statements each properly provide the text of each request, interrogatory, and demand, and provide Plaintiffs’ response to each request. Further, the separate statements each provide Uber’s legal and factual reasons for why Uber is seeking to compel further responses to each request at issue. Uber’s separate statements sufficiently comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(c).

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 objections, including those based on privilege. (See Denari v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1488, 1494-95.)

Plaintiffs, in opposition, argue that Defendants fail to adequately address Plaintiffs’ objections and establish that further responses should be compelled. However, as stated above, the burden is on Plaintiffs as the objecting parties to support the applicability of a particular objection. (Ibid.) The only specific discovery requests addressed by Plaintiffs in their opposition is RPDs 1-3; the motions concerning the RPDs served on Plaintiffs will be addressed below. Plaintiffs do not address any other specific discovery requests or provide any facts or evidence to establish that the objections to each specific request are proper. Further, as to Plaintiffs’ contention that the discovery requests are fatally defective because the definition of “You” and “Your” include third parties acting on Plaintiffs’ behalf, Plaintiffs fail to cite any authority holding that a request seeking about persons acting on behalf of a party renders the request invalid as a matter of law. Plaintiffs did not otherwise file their own separate statement in response to the form interrogatories, or any other discovery requests at issue, to provide any reasons why further responses should not be compelled as to each discovery request. Accordingly, Plaintiffs fail to establish the appropriateness of any of Felipe’s objections to the form interrogatories.

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 establish the appropriateness of any objections to the subject form interrogatories. (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 establish the appropriateness of any objections to the special interrogatories. (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 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. Uber asserts that the RPDs relate to issues of liability, causation, and damages. In particular, Uber avers it is seeking to obtain documents that relate to the accident, relating to witness statements, photos or videos of the accident, whether any reports were made regarding the accident, and medical records, among other documents, relating to Plaintiffs’ claims and alleged injuries. Uber establishes good cause justifying the documents and materials requested in the RPDs.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue specifically that RPDs 1-3 expressly ask Plaintiffs to provide all documents that were given to or received by anyone, including Plaintiffs’ counsel, which is not discoverable. RPDs 1-3 seek all documents that Plaintiffs, including Plaintiffs’ counsel, received or sent relating to the accident, and all documents showing Plaintiffs’ communications with any persons regarding the incident. These requests on their face may include communications protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. However, CCP § 2031.240 states in relevant part:

(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following:

(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.

(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.

(c)(1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.

Felipe’s responses do not identify with particularity any documents or category of information being withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine objections. Although Felipe objected to RPDs 1-3 in part on the grounds that the RPDs seek privileged or protected information, Felipe does not provide sufficient information for Uber to evaluate the merits of the objections. Felipe has deprived Uber of the ability to assess whether there is any responsive material that is subject to production. Therefore, Felipe will be required to serve a further response to RPDs 1-3. However, if Felipe deems it appropriate to withhold documents as attorney-client privileged or protected by the work product doctrine, Felipe may provide a privilege log compliant with CCP § 2031.240 for those documents.

Felipe does not otherwise establish the applicability of any particular privilege or objection to the remaining RPDs. (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.

RPDs 1-3 served on Angelo are identical to RPDs 1-3 served on Felipe and addressed above. Accordingly, for the same reasons articulated above, Angelo is ordered to serve further responses to RPDs 1-3. However, if Angelo deems it appropriate to withhold documents as attorney-client privileged or protected by the work product doctrine, Angelo may provide a privilege log compliant with CCP § 2031.240 for those documents.

Furthermore, Angelo fails to establish the appropriateness of any objections asserted in the remaining 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, and Uber establishes good cause for the requested information, as they relate to issues of liability, damages and Angelo’s claimed injuries.

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 supports the applicability of any particular objection to the RFAs served on them. (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.

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court