Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV22348, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22348    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Craig R. Casner’s Motion for Protective Order

Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On July 12, 2022, Plaintiff Keith Gibson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Craig R. Casner (“Casner”), Sean Coniff (“Coniff”) and Vince Solomon (“Solomon”) for battery, negligence and premises liability.

On September 16, 2022, Casner filed an answer.

On November 1, 2022, Casner filed a Motion for Protective Order to be heard on January 31, 2023. On January 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

Trial is currently scheduled for January 9, 2024.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Casner requests the Court grant an order stating that Casner only need to respond to 35 special interrogatories.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 2030.030 states: “(b) Except as provided in Section 2030.070, no party shall, as a matter of right, propound to any other party more than 35 specially prepared interrogatories. If the initial set of interrogatories does not exhaust this limit, the balance may be propounded in subsequent sets.

(c) Unless a declaration as described in Section 2030.050 has been made, a party need only respond to the first 35 specially prepared interrogatories served, if that party states an objection to the balance, under Section 2030.240, on the ground that the limit has been exceeded.”

Under CCP §2030.090, when interrogatories have been propounded, the responding order may move for a protective order for good cause. If a party unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order under this section, the Court shall impose monetary sanctions unless there is substantial justification. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff alleges that he was visited Coniff’s backyard when Solomon battered him, resulting in Plaintiff falling off Coniff’s back deck. Casner owned the subject property and was leasing it to Coniff.

On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff served 93 special interrogatories on Casner. Casner alleges that the supplied declaration does not meet the requirements of CCP § 2030.050, as it does not prove the excessive amount of discovery was necessary due to any complexity involved in the case. Additionally, Casner states that many of the interrogatories are duplicative, asking effectively the same questions.

In reviewing the interrogatories, the Court agrees that many of the interrogatories are unduly cumulative—each set of questions includes multiple repetitions in which Plaintiff decreases the applicable time frame. For example, Plaintiff asks if inspections were ever conducts, then if any were conducted in three months prior, and then if any were conducted on the day of the incident—and if so, what time. Many of these interrogatories could be combined into a single interrogatory, in which Plaintiff asks for the dates of all inspections that occurred within a reasonable period of time prior to the incident.

Additionally, reviewing the declaration, the Court finds the reason provided does not warrant an additional 60 interrogatories. Plaintiff’s counsel stated that these extra interrogatories are warranted “due to the nature and complexity of the issues involved in this case,” but provided no actual facts to support this statement.

Plaintiff argues that the special interrogatories are specifically tailored to the claims and defenses raised by the pleadings in this case; while the Court agrees that the special interrogatories are specifically tailored, they are so tailored as to produce an undue and repetitious burden on Casner in providing what should be relatively simple answers. 

Should Plaintiff need additional or more specific information after Casner provides discovery answers to the first set, Plaintiff may then serve supplemental interrogatories. At this time, the Court does not find these to be necessary or support by Plaintiff’s declaration. The Court grants the motion.

The Court will not impose sanctions at this time, as Plaintiff’s opposition was justified in noting that Plaintiff was attempting to received tailored answers.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Craig R. Casner’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.