Judge Audra Mori, Case BC712172 2022-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff, Jasmine Marie Acosta (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, Dann Frank Sarnoski (“Dann Frank”) and Helen Sarnoski (“Helen”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising out of an automobile accident.

On February 14, 2022, Defendants filed the instant motion to compel further responses to supplemental interrogatories, set three, against Plaintiff. On September 8, 2022, an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) was scheduled to address the subject discovery issues. However, there was no appearance or contact by Plaintiff at the IDC. To date, no opposition has been filed to the motion.

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

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

Responses must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (CCP § 2030.220(a).)

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.

Here, Defendants move to compel further responses to supplemental interrogatories, set three, which pertain to form interrogatories 2.6, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, and 8.8, and Special Interrogatories 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13. (Mot. at p. 2:3-5.) Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient responses to the subject supplemental interrogatories because Plaintiff stated in the form interrogatories that she is not currently working, but a medical report Plaintiff supplementally produced states that she is working. Defendants contend the supplementally produced medical reports also identify additional personal injury complaints, treatment, and treatment recommendations that Plaintiff has not identified in discovery. Defendants further asserts that Plaintiff must update her response regarding her medical charges, as Plaintiff has had additional treatment but failed to identify the additional charges.

The supplemental interrogatories request information concerning Plaintiff’s treatment, treatment recommendations, working status, loss of income, and medical charges. In “Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories,” Plaintiff responded:

Plaintiff has sought further treatment from Dr. David Patterson, M.D, Casa Colina Hospital and Centers for Healthcare, 255 E. Bonita Avenue, Pomona, CA 91767 (909) 596-7733 and Dr. Elizabeth Preston Cisneros, Ph.D., A Psychological Corporation 14788 Oak Leaf Drive, Eastvale, CA 92880. Corresponding documents, to date, have been produced to the requesting party, and will be produced. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge after a reasonable and diligent search and effort, Plaintiff has no additional information to supplement Plaintiff’s prior responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories. Plaintiff reserves the right to introduce at the time of trial any newly discovered information or documents or evidence, not previously produced

(Separate Statement.) Accordingly, Plaintiff states she has sought further treatment from Dr. Patterson and Dr. Elizabeth Preston Cisneros, and that “Corresponding documents, to date, have been produced to the requesting party, and will be produced.” (Ibid.)

While the general response refers Defendants to “Corresponding documents” that have been produced, the responses are not insufficient detail such as to permit Defendants to determine what documents contain the relevant information, and where in the documents the responses to each supplemental interrogatory can be ascertained. To the extent Plaintiff responses that corresponding documents will be produced, there is no showing that any such documents have been served on Defendants with Code complaint responses pursuant to CCP § 2030.230. As Defendants contend, Plaintiff’s responses are incomplete and do not provide all requested information.

Defendants assert, “Plaintiff’s second further amended response to form interrogatory 2.6 (regarding her employment) states that Plaintiff has not been gainfully employed from 5 years preceding the accident to the present. (Exh. I, at MTC 134.) Plaintiff’s responses to the 8 series of form interrogatories also state that Plaintiff is not currently working.” However, other documents produced by Plaintiff state that she now works for her family business. On December 27, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated he would provide amended responses, but never provided them. Plaintiff’s counsel did not appear at the IDC. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion or otherwise confirm that Plaintiff is still unemployed. Thus, Plaintiff must respond further to form interrogatory 2.6 and the 8 series of form interrogatories, either confirming that the information provided was accurate and complete or providing additional information. The same is true of Form Interrogatories 6.2-6.5, 6.7, and 8.8, and Special Interrogatories 3 through 13. As Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that further responses would be provided, and Plaintiff does not oppose this motion or otherwise confirm that her prior responses are accurate, Plaintiff must respond further as necessary, by confirming that information previously provided was accurate and complete or providing additional information. All of Plaintiff’s responses must comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Therefore, Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to supplemental interrogatories, set three, is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses 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).) In this case, the Court finds sanctions warranted for the unopposed motion to compel further responses. Defendants are awarded three hours for preparing the motion and one hour for appearing at the hearing all at the reasonable rate of $180 per hour, for an attorney fees award of $720. Further, Defendants are awarded the $60 motion filing fee as costs.

Defendants do not describe any conduct by Plaintiff warranting sanctions against Plaintiff directly. 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 $780.00, within 20 days.

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court