Judge Audra Mori, Case 21STCV35196 2023-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Juliet Ansumana (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Rochelle Sterling (“Defendant”), as Trustee of the Sterling Family Trust and dba Beverly Hills Properties, for injuries Plaintiff allegedly sustained as a result of an incident that occurred in an elevator located at Defendant’s property at 120 South Reno Street in Los Angeles, California, on December 17, 2019.

At this time, Defendant moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set three, Nos. 31-34. Defendant scheduled an Informal Discovery Conference to address the subject issues for January 19, 2023, but Plaintiff there was no appearance by or for Plaintiff. To date, no opposition has been filed.

CCP § 2030.300(a) provides that 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.

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with [the discovery statutes], any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action ... if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action....” (See Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1012-13.) “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement....’ [Citation.] Admissibility is not the test and information unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation.] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery [citation], and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases.” (Id. at 1013.)

Here, Defendant seeks to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set three, Nos. 31-34. These special interrogatories seek contact information, including the name, telephone number, address, and email, for Plaintiff’s husband, adult daughter, and attorney that represented Plaintiff in her claim for car accident injuries from October 2018. (Mot. Toutant Decl. Exh. D.) Defendant asserts that during her deposition, Plaintiff testified that her husband and adult daughter observed her physical condition and the paralysis she alleges she suffered as a result of the incident, and that she testified she retained an attorney to represent her for her claims stemming from an October 2018 car accident, who would have knowledge of Plaintiff's injuries and physical condition. Defendant contends that in response to these interrogatories, Plaintiff failed to provide a current or local address for her husband, failed to provide any information regarding her daughter, and failed to provide the attorney’s name that represented her. Defendant avers that the requested information is immediately available to Plaintiff through phone calls, and Defendant contends that each witness for who information is sought will have relevant information regarding Plaintiff’s physical condition.

Plaintiff’s responses are evasive and incomplete. (Mot. Toutant Decl. Exh. E.) Plaintiff does not oppose the instant motion and thus fails to provide any reasons for why Plaintiff cannot obtain the contact information for her daughter, husband, and prior attorney. For example, although Plaintiff’s responses are incomplete, they provide telephone numbers for her husband and prior attorney. It is thus unclear why Plaintiff cannot contact the witnesses to obtain complete responses for the information requested. As to the interrogatory concerning Plaintiff’s daughter, Plaintiff fails to provide any reasoning as to why Plaintiff cannot provide any information about her daughter, including her daughter’s name. Plaintiff’s responses must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (CCP § 2030.220(a).) Moreover, Defendant sufficiently establishes that the relevant witnesses may have relevant information concerning Plaintiff’s injuries. “Nothing could be more ordinary in discovery than finding out the location of identified witnesses so that they may be contacted and additional investigation performed.” (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1254; see Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 373-74 [“Our discovery statute recognizes that ‘the identity and location of persons having [discoverable] knowledge’ are proper subjects of civil discovery…”].) Therefore, Plaintiff must provide further, complete responses to these interrogatories.

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set three, is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve further verified responses to special interrogatories, set three, Nos. 31-34 within twenty (20) days.

Sanctions are mandatory. (CCP § 2030.300(d).) Defendant is awarded two hours for preparing the motion and one hour for appearing at hearing all at the reasonable rate of $200 per hour for a total of $600 in attorney fees. Further, Defendant is awarded the $60 motion filing fee as costs. Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s, jointly and severally.

Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through Defendant’s attorney of record, in the total amount of $660.00, within thirty (30) days.

As a final note, Defendant reserved the hearing for the instant motion as a hearing on a Motion to Compel Discovery (not “Further Discovery”). However, Defendant is clearly seeking to compel further responses. Defendant should have reserved the motion as a hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses. Failing to properly reserve a hearing for a motion to compel further manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants.

Counsel is put on notice, and should instruct their staff, that it is inappropriate to intentionally reserve a hearing date for a different type of motion so that the motion can be heard sooner. Defendant’s counsel is also put on notice that failure to properly reserve hearings in the future based on the type of motion being heard will result in the matter being taken off calendar.

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court