Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Darakjian v. Mercury Insurance Group, Date: 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling

The Motion to Compel Plaintiff Annie Darakjian's Further Responses to Defendant's Form Interrogatories (Set One), etc., as filed by Defendant California Automobile Insurance Company (“CAIC”) on 7/11/22 as ROA 73 is GRANTED IN PART. 

The Motion seeks an order to compel further responses from Plaintiff Annie Darakjian (here, “Plaintiff”), as to CAIC’s Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”), Set One, for Nos. 7.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.4, 12.5, 12.7, 17.1, 50.2, 50.5 and 50.6. 

The Motion is GRANTED IN PART, as to FROGs 7.2, 12.4 and 12.5, 17.1, and 50.2, 50.5, and 50.6,but otherwise DENIED.

For FROG 7.2, the response is incomplete as it did not adequately identify those who provided estimates and the amounts. Plaintiff must thus supplement to provide that identifying information and respond to the subparts.

For FROGs 12.1, 12.2, and 12.7, the responses reasonably objected to the term “incident” in context, and then attempted to answer. CAIC evidently declined to further clarify the term as used here. (See ROA 73 at Ex. F.)  Nothing more may reasonably be required in light of the unclear definition here. 

For FROGs 12.4 and 12.5, and for FROG 17.1 as to RFAs 5, 7 and 8, Plaintiff provided a partial response but did not then answer the subparts. Plaintiff must thus supplement to respond to the subparts. 

For FROG 17.1, as to RFA Nos. 1, 2, 10 and 11, and  for FROGs 50.2, 50.5, and 50.6, Plaintiff objected that each called for a legal conclusion. But that is not a valid objection in this context, as an interrogatory “may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based” and “is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.” (C.C.P. § 2030.010(b).)  Plaintiff must thus supplement those responses.

The Objections presented by CAIC with the Reply (in ROA 103) are OVERRULED.

The requests for sanctions, as presented by both sides, are all DENIED.  Although some of the responses were deficient, others were not, and a more meaningful effort to meet and confer could potentially have resolved much of what was in dispute. The Court thus finds that no sanctions should be imposed on either side here.

Finally, the Court notes that a similar motion was filed on the same day by CAIC, as to the other Plaintiff Vahe Darakjian, and that the Opposition asserts here that it is effectively identical to this Motion. If so, counsel should discuss whether they wish to stipulate that the rulings here will apply equally thereto, or would prefer to appear again next week.

Counsel for moving party CAIC is to give notice.