Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 21STCV04854, Date: 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04854    Hearing Date: August 24, 2022    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Perera vs. Acclivity West, LLC, et. al., Case No. 21STCV04854

Tentative Ruling re:  Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Request for Sanctions

            Plaintiff Swarna Perera (Plaintiff) moves to compel Defendant Acclivity West, LLC (Defendant) to provide further responses to the Form Interrogatories (Set One), Interrogatory No. 15.1. The motion is granted.

A motion to compel further responses to form or specially prepared interrogatories may be brought if the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)  

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220, a responding party’s answer to interrogatories must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits,” and “[i]f an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” It is improper for an answer to only respond to a portion of the information sought, particularly when an interrogatory is specific and explicit. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)

“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.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the¿burden is on the responding party¿to justify any objection or failure fully to answer.¿(Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also¿Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

A motion to compel further responses must also be accompanied by a separate statement containing the requests and the responses, as well as reasons why a further response is warranted.¿¿(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).)

Plaintiff propounded the Form Interrogatories (Set One) on Defendant on June 9, 2021.  (Tokar Decl., Ex. A.) Form Interrogatory 15.1 asked Defendant to identify facts, witnesses, and documents in support of each denial of a material allegation and each of its special or affirmative defenses.

Defendant served responses on July 30, 2021. (Tokar Decl., Ex. B.) Defendant objected to Form Interrogatory 15.1 on grounds of privilege and/or work-product and premature disclosure of expert witness information, and provided no response.

The Court agrees that Defendant’s objections are without merit. There is no indication that the form interrogatory implicates information protected by privilege, work-product, or expert witness information. Defendant has not opposed this motion.

The motion to compel further responses is granted.

Sanctions

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).) Misuses of the discovery process include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery,” and “[m]aking, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subds. (d), (e).)

The Court awards monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel for its failure to respond to the discovery and unmeritorious objections. Plaintiff requests sanctions in the total amount of $2,760, at a rate of $450 per hour, for 4 hours to draft this motion, 2 hours to draft a reply, and $60 for filing fees. Because Defendant has not opposed this motion, 2 hours are subtracted from the hours billed. Accordingly, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $1,860.