Judge Barbara M. Scheper, Case Number: 23STCV26981, Date: 2024-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 23STCV26981, Date: 2024-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV26981 Hearing Date: May 15, 2024 Dept: 30

DANA VARON vs DAMULS 2244 LLC, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendant Damuls 2244, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production is GRANTED in its entirety. Further responses are ordered served within 20 days. Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff in the amount of $2,235.00, payable to Defendant within 30 days.

Defendants to give notice.

DISCUSSION

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010(a).) If a propounding party is not satisfied with the response served by a responding party, the former may move the court to compel further interrogatory responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) The propounding party must demonstrate that the responses were incomplete, inadequate or evasive, or that the responding party asserted objections that are either without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a)(1)–(3); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 403.)

“A party may demand that any other party produce . . . a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010(b).) The demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).) “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand,” and “[t]he motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b).)

Defendant Damuls 2244, LLC (Defendant) seeks further responses from Plaintiff Dana Varon (Plaintiff) to Form Interrogatories No. 2.5–2.7, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 7.1, 7.2, 8.2–8.8, 9.1, 9.2, 12.4, 12.6, and 12.7, and to Request for Production No. 1. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s responses to these interrogatories were evasive and incomplete, and that Plaintiff has failed to produce the documents promised in response to Request for Production No. 1.

Plaintiff argues in opposition that Defendant failed to meet and confer prior to filing this motion. (Opposition at pp. 3–4.) But the evidence reveals that Defendant served a meet-and-confer letter on February 15, 2024, outlining the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s responses, to which Plaintiff did not respond. (Phillips Decl. ¶ 15, Exh. F.) Although Plaintiff argues that this letter consisted only of statements that Plaintiff’s responses were insufficient, the letter put Plaintiff on ample notice of the nature and extent of the deficiencies in the responses at issue. Little more was required, especially considering the lack of any response from Plaintiff’s counsel, and the deliberate and abusive obstructionism evidenced in Plaintiff’s responses, discussed below.

Interrogatories No. 2.5–2.7 sought Plaintiff’s residence history, employment history, and education history, including details regarding Plaintiff’s residences and employment for the past five years, and the schools and degrees that Plaintiff has obtained, accompanied by specific dates. (Separate Statement at pp. 1–5.) Plaintiff responded as follows:

· Residence history: “Decline to provide – privacy, may be contacted through counsel only.”

· Employment history: “Self employed”

· Education history: “Decline to provide, privacy, overly broad, relevance. Have a BA in Education and Theater Arts.”

(Separate Statement at pp. 2–4.)

These responses are insufficient. First, Plaintiff fails to offer any basis for privacy objections to interrogatories seeking residency information and education information. Plaintiff’s residency information is relevant to planning the locations of depositions and medical or mental examinations. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2025.250, subd. (a) [place of deposition]; 2032.220, subd. (a)(2) [place of examination].) And Plaintiff’s employment and education history is relevant to potential damages. Moreover, it is not Defendant’s burden to provide good cause justifying the interrogatories, as in the case of a motion to compel further responses to requests for document production. (Compare Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300 [interrogatories] and 2031.310, subd. (b)(1) [requests for production].) It is rather Plaintiff’s burden to justify the objections offered in response, which she has not done here. Thus further responses are required.

Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatories No. 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 7.1, 7.2, 8.2–8.8, 9.1, and 12.4 are egregious. These interrogatories sought information concerning Plaintiff’s injuries, damages, and the medical providers who treated them, and other relevant information. Plaintiff, in response to each, provided no factual information, but referred Defendant to “Plaintiff’s document production from which the answer to this interrogatory may be ascertained.” (Separate Statement at pp. 5–19.) But these responses fail for two reasons.

First, Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.230, upon which Plaintiff relies, does not authorize a responding party to answer particularized interrogatories by gesturing to the entire corpus of documentary production made in a given case. It requires a party responding by reference to documents to “to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained,” and to do so “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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230.) Plaintiff did not attempt to do so here.

Secondly, Plaintiff has not actually produced any documents. (Phillips Decl. ¶ 9.) Defendant repeatedly notes this fact and seeks relief on this basis with respect to Request for Production No. 1. But Plaintiff in opposition neither denies it nor contends that the production has been belatedly provided or is forthcoming. Plaintiff, in other words, had no basis to believe that the document referrals were responsive, and has no basis for so arguing in opposition to the present motion.

The remaining interrogatory responses, though differing in form, are alike in their shared defects. Interrogatory No. 12.6 asked if any report was made concerning the incident that is the subject of this action, and Plaintiff responded in the affirmative and named the individual who conducted the inspection, but did not provide — as was requested — the “title, identification number, and employer of the person who made the report,” or a description of the “date and type of report made,” instead referring once again to “Plaintiff’s document production,” which, as noted above, does not exist.(Separate Statement at pp. 23–24.) A further response is required.

Interrogatory No. 12.7, meanwhile, asked whether anyone acting on behalf of the Plaintiff had inspected the scene of the incident and sought relevant details. (Separate Statement at p. 25.) Plaintiff responded in the affirmative, identified “LADWP Southern California Gas Company,” but did not provide contact information for “the individual making the inspection”, and when asked to identify the date of inspection, once again referred to all documents heretofore produced. (Ibid.) Another further response is required.

Thus the motion is properly granted in its entirety as to the form interrogatories, but it is also properly granted as to Request for Production No. 1. This request sought all documents identified in the form interrogatories, and Plaintiff responded with a statement of full compliance. (Separate Statement at p. 2.) However, as noted above, no production has been made.

The motion is therefore GRANTED in its entirety.

II. SANCTIONS

Statute provides that the court shall impose sanctions upon a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or requests for admission, absent substantial justification otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300, subd. (d); 2031.310, subd. (h); 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Defendant seeks $2,235.00 in sanctions, representing 7.5 hours of attorney work at $290 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee. (Phillips Decl. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff in opposition argues that this sanction request is punitive, and the amount of hours sought is unreasonable. (Opposition at pp. 8–10.) However, the request is supported by the declaration of Defendant’s counsel, and the amount sought is reasonable. The sanctions are not punitive in nature, but mandatory, and serve the salutary purpose of encouraging Plaintiff’s counsel to abide discovery requirements in the future.

Sanctions in this amount are awarded against Plaintiff and payable to Defendant.