Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: "Vazquez v. Future Motion, Inc", Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

The two motions by plaintiff Jeffrey S. Vazquez (“plaintiff”) to compel defendant Future Motion, Inc. (“defendant”) to provide (1) further responses to Requests for Admission, Set Two and (2) further responses to Form Interrogatories (“FROGS”), Set Two are GRANTED with reduced sanctions.

CCP Section 2033.220(a) mandates that each RFA response be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. The same is required of interrogatory responses. (CCP §2030.220(a)).

The court finds defendant’s responses to the subject RFAS and corresponding FROG 17.1 are evasive. Plaintiff claims that he was injured when the Onewheel skateboard he was riding on flat ground “nosedived” by abruptly tilting the front of the board downward into the ground causing a sudden stop and plaintiff to fall. (Mtn. 3:11-19). 

Onewheel and NOSEDIVE were defined clearly enough for Future Motion to either admit or deny RFA 28, that some users have experienced incidents of NOSEDIVE within the past three years and RFA No. 31, that some users of Onewheel have sustained injuries within the past three years due to alleged incidents of NOSEDIVE.

In fact, defendant admits to understanding the meaning of “NOSEDIVE” within its response by stating: “Consumers may use that term generically to describe a person falling forward off the board after the nose touches the ground...” 

What defendant gave was a nonresponsive statement to all RFAS and FROGS. Further, defendant did not answer all subparts of FROG 17.1.

Defendant’s contention that the RFAS are irrelevant is meritless.  The lawsuit is about injuries resulting from NOSEDIVES as defined, and evidence of other incidents is admissible to prove a defective condition, knowledge or the cause of an accident if the circumstances of the other accidents are similar and not too remote. (Ault v. International Harvester Co. (1974) 13 Cal.3d 113, 121-122). The other incidents do not have to be identical to the one alleged in plaintiff’s complaint.

Moreover, discovery is not limited to admissible evidence. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 591) Information is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence (ibid.), and RFAS 28 and 31 and the corresponding FROGS do just that.

Defendant is ordered to provide further, code-compliant, verified responses to RFAS 28 and 31 and the corresponding FROG 17.1 for both RFAS, including all subparts (a)-(d) within 20 days from the date the Notice of Ruling is served.

Sanctions:

Plaintiff’s Notice of RFA Motion requests sanctions against defendant only, not against its counsel. Thus, sanctions are awarded against defendant only. (CCP §2023.040; Cromwell v. Cummings (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 14)  Defendant Future Motion, Inc. shall pay plaintiff reasonable sanctions in the amount of $500 within 60 days. (CCP §§2023.010(e), (f), and (h), 2023.030(a); 2033.290(d)) 

As plaintiff’s FROG motion seeks sanctions against both defendant and its counsel, defendant Future Motion, Inc. and it’s counsel shall pay plaintiff reasonable sanctions int the amount of $500 within 60 days. (CCP §§2023.010(e), (f), and (h), 2023.030(a); 2030.300(d)) 

The court finds no substantial justification or other circumstances which make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

Plaintiff to give Notice of Ruling.