Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV10900, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10900    Hearing Date: March 15, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On March 22, 2021, Plaintiff Randall Stewart initiated this action against Defendants Los Angeles Police Department, City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, and Bryan Dameworth. The operative Second Amended Complaint, filed January 18, 2023, alleges (1) battery, (2) assault, (3) battery by peace officer, (4) negligent hiring, (5) negligence, (6) negligent use of deadly force, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (8) violation of the Bane Act. Plaintiff alleges that he was attending a protest on May 30, 2020, in Los Angeles when Officer Dameworth fired a rubber bullet, striking him. (SAC ¶¶ 10-12.) The incident allegedly left Plaintiff with severe injuries and continued pain and suffering (Id., ¶ 30.)

            On February 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 36-55.  

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).)

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 Park Decl. ¶ 7.) Defense counsel responded to Plaintiff’s letter with the following: “I believe the responses to the interrogatories are clear and accurate and I will not be supplementing those.” (Id., Ex. 5.) The parties clearly reached an impasse, necessitating Court intervention.

DISCUSSION

            The interrogatories at issue ask Defendant whether he contends that Plaintiff posed an imminent threat to Defendant or others at the time of the incident or on the day of the incident. If Defendant makes such contentions, the interrogatories ask for all supporting facts, documents, and witnesses.

            On whether he makes such contentions, Defendant responded with: (1) “Not as far as I know but I do not know what Plaintiff was doing other than what can be seen in my body worn video. Discovery is continuing;” or (2) “I cannot answer this interrogatory as I don’t have information about what Plaintiff was doing on the day of the INCIDENT other than what can be seen in my body worn video. Discovery is continuing.” In response to the interrogatories asking for supporting facts, Defendant stated “Not applicable.”

              Plaintiff argues that the responses are not straightforward because Defendant refused to answer with a simple “yes or no.” However, the responses sufficiently indicate that, as far as Defendant knows, Plaintiff did not pose an imminent threat of bodily injury to Defendant. Defendant has stated that he does not know whether Plaintiff posed an imminent threat at any time not shown in the body worn video. Defendant cannot be expected to know at this point whether Plaintiff presented a threat at other times throughout the day of the incident, and Defendant cannot be forced to answer when he has insufficient information. Defendant properly responded with “Not applicable” to the interrogatories asking for supporting facts because those interrogatories ask for facts only if Defendant makes certain contentions. Defendant cannot provide facts to support contentions that he is not making.

            The interrogatories were answered to the best of Defendant’s abilities with the information currently known, which complies with the Code. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a).)

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED.