Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 19STCV09832, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV09832 Hearing Date: July 28, 2022 Dept: 3
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT
DEPARTMENT 3
BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. vs. LAKEVIEW CHEESE CO., LLC | Case No.: | 19STCV09832 [c/w 20STCV09041] |
Hearing Date: | July 28, 2022 | |
Time: | ||
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT LAKEVIEW CHEESE CO., LLC AND DEFENDANT DAVID CHU
| ||
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION |
| |
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Barrett Business Services, Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Lakeview Cheese Co., LLC and David Chu
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Written Discovery Propounded on Defendant Lakeview Cheese Co., LLC and Defendant David Chu
The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply filed in connection with this motion.
BACKGROUND
This is an insurance subrogation action arising out of a vehicle collision. Defendant David Chu (“Chu”) was operating an 18-wheeler semi-truck while in the course of scope of his employment with Defendant Lakeview Cheese Co., LLC (“Lakeview”) when he struck Anthony Soza (“Soza”), an employee of Harry’s Glass Shop, Inc. (“Harry’s”). Soza recovered workers’ compensation policy benefits which Plaintiff Barrett Business Services, Inc. (“Barrett”) now seeks to recover in this action.
On September 30, 2021, Barrett propounded written discovery requests, including Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on Lakeview and Chu. (Otero Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, Exs. A, B.) On December 6, 2021, Lakeview and Chu served their responses. (Otero Decl., ¶¶ 8-9, Exs. F, G.) The parties met and conferred regarding these initial responses. (Otero Decl., ¶¶ 10-13.) On February 4, 2022, Lakeview and Chu served amended responses to the discovery. (Otero Decl., ¶¶ 14-15, Exs. L, M.) The parties again met and conferred regarding the responses. (Otero Decl., ¶¶ 21-22, Exs. R, S.) On April 13, 2022, Lakeview and Chu supplemented their responses to the Special Interrogatories. (Otero Decl., ¶ 22, Ex. T.)
Barrett moves for an order compelling further responses from Lakeview and Chu to Form Interrogatory Nos. 1.1 (as to Lakeview only), 12.3, 12.5, 14.1, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, and 16.6, Special Interrogatory No. 4, and Request for Production of Documents No. 1.
LEGAL STANDARD
A propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to an interrogatory or a demand for inspection if the propounding party deems that an answer or statement of compliance is evasive or incomplete, or that an objection is “without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a).) Such a motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1), 2031.210, subd. (b).) And a motion to compel a further response to a demand for inspection shall also set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (b).)
If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed such a motion, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).)
DISCUSSION
Special Interrogatory
The court finds that a further response is not required for Special Interrogatory No. 4. Defendants’ objection that the interrogatory impermissibly contains subparts and is compound is well-taken.
Request for Production of Documents
The court finds that a further response is required for Request for Production No. 1, which seeks all “writings” as defined by Evidence Code section 250 which in any way refers or relates to the “Incident”, including statements, accident reports, photos, and the like. Defendants’ objection on the basis of attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine are not supported by a privilege log. Defendants’ objection that the request fails to specifically describe the item or category of documents requested is without merit. And finally, the court does not find that the request is overly broad as to scope and time.
Form Interrogatories
The court finds that a further response is required for Form Interrogatory No. 1.1 because it appears on its face to be incomplete. As explained by Barrett in reply, the responses by Lakeview were verified by an individual, and Lakeview did not provide any identifying information about this individual.
The court finds that a further response is not required for Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.3, 12.5, 14.1, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, and 16.6. Defendants’ responses are not vague or ambiguous.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court grants in part and denies in part Barrett’s motion to compel further responses.
The court orders Lakeview and Chu to serve on Barrett verified, Code-compliant further responses to Barrett’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, No. 1.1 (as to Lakeview only) and Request for Production of Documents, No. 1 (as to Lakeview and Chu), within 20 days of the date of this order.
The court awards no sanctions to either party.
Barrett is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Colin Leis
Judge of the Superior Court