Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 21STCV31909, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31909    Hearing Date: December 16, 2022    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No. 

Lucich vs. Kwok, et. al., Case No. 21STCV31909

Tentative Ruling re:  Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Plaintiff Matthew Lucich (Plaintiff) moves to compel Defendant Wai King Kwok (Defendant) to provide a further response to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 in the Form Interrogatories (Set One). The motion is denied as moot. The requests for sanctions are denied.

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).)

Plaintiff propounded the Form Interrogatories (Set One) on Defendant on April 11, 2022. (Belisle Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant served responses on June 6, 2022. (Belisle Decl. ¶ 3.) Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 asks Defendant to “[i]dentify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings,” and state the facts, witnesses, and documents relied upon for each. In response, Defendant objected based on vagueness, ambiguity, and privilege, and stated that Defendant’s affirmative defenses were “based on Defendant’s general denial that there was any wrongdoing.” (Belisle Decl., Ex. B [34].)

Defendant Rose Kagel Kwok (Rose), as Guardian Ad Litem for Defendant Wai King Kwok, served a supplemental response to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 on December 2, 2022. (Stahl Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses is moot.

“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).)

Both parties request that sanctions be imposed against the other. Defendant argues that the failure to respond was substantially justified because Defendant Wai King Kwok, who is 91 years old, suffers from dementia and could not provide further responses. Defendant also recently suffered a fall which resulted in a broken hip and required surgery. (Stahl Decl. ¶ 5.) Rose, her daughter, applied for and was approved as Guardian Ad Litem for Defendant on November 14, 2022.

The Court finds that Defendant’s circumstances show “substantial justification” for the failure to respond. The Court also finds Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts to have been sufficient. Accordingly, no sanctions are awarded against either party.