Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV47785, Date: 2022-11-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47785    Hearing Date: November 23, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            This is an action arising under California’s Proposition 65, or the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. Plaintiff Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. brought this action in the public interest against Mitsuwa Corporation, Central Boeki California, Ltd., and Pax’s Distributors. The complaint alleges that Defendants manufacture, distribute, or sell certain seaweed and fish products that require Prop 65 warnings and that Defendants have failed to provide such warnings.

            Plaintiff presently moves to compel Defendant Pax’s Distributors (Pax) to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production.   

LEGAL STANDARD

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)  

On receipt of a response to a request for inspection, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses 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, subd. (a).)

MEET AND CONFER

Motions to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to resolve the issue informally. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b)(2), 2033.290(b)(1).) The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Yeroushalmi Decl.)

DISCUSSION

            The SROGs and RFPs in question request information on Product 1. Plaintiff defined Product 1 as seasoned filefish and gave an example of one particular filefish product. Plaintiff takes issue with Pax’s responses because “Defendant has limited its response and document production to the exemplar and not provided responses to the entire product category as defined in the discovery and complaint.” (Plntf.’s Sep. Stmtn. 7:5-7.)

However, there is no indication that Pax limited its responses to one particular product as opposed to the product category. Plaintiff asked about “Product 1,” and Pax responded about “Product” or “the Product.” Plaintiff is the one who chose to refer to the category as “Product 1” and cannot subsequently complain that Pax parrots that language in its responses. If Plaintiff has a particular product in mind for which Pax has not produced documents or answered SROGs, Plaintiff should so specify or propound further discovery regarding that specific product.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED. Sanctions are denied as the parties acted with substantial justification.