Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2021-01233370, Date: 2023-07-17 Tentative Ruling
The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories filed by Defendant National General Premier Insurance Company (“Defendant”) on 2/21/23 is GRANTED.
Responses in accordance with this ruling are to be provided within 30 days of this hearing.
The court notes that the motion is timely. Although it was filed the day after the agreed upon deadline, that date was a state and federal holiday. Under CCP § 12a, the motions are timely.
The Form Interrogatories - General concern standard questions about Plaintiff’s employment and educational history for the past five years, as well as questions about the loss and damages at the heart of these claims, photographs and videos of the vehicle, whether the request for admission are unqualified (to which Plaintiff merely answered “no” with no other information as called for by the interrogatory), and whether there was a breach of an agreement alleged. The interrogatories are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, and the responses are incomplete and vague, as several responses are single words, despite the interrogatories clearly requiring elaboration. In the absence of any meaningful opposition, Defendant has shown good cause to compel further responses and the motion to compel further responses to the Form interrogatories (Set One) is granted.
The Special Interrogatories concern Plaintiff’s submission of this claim to Defendant, past insurance claims made by Plaintiff, identification of writings supporting the prayer for attorneys’ fees and punitive damages, facts supporting various contentions in the Complaint, and writings supporting those contentions. All are relevant to the litigation and the basis of the Complaint, and Defendant has shown good cause for the discovery.
As to information about previous insurance claims, Plaintiff objects on the grounds of relevance, and refers Defendant to documents produced concurrently but no documents were produced nor has Plaintiff specified which documents would answer the question, as required under CCP § 2030.230. Plaintiff also objects on the grounds of attorney/client privilege or attorney work product, as well as right to privacy. In the absence of any substantive opposition, these objections are unsupported and further responses are warranted as the subject matter is relevant to the litigation.
Plaintiff’s response to each interrogatory requesting the identification of documents is an objection on the basis of attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, however Plaintiff did not provide any privilege log, nor is it clear how all writings supporting any of the contentions in the complaint could be privileged.
Plaintiff’s responses to each interrogatory requesting facts supporting the contentions in the complaint are objections based on attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, premature disclosure of expert witness testimony and work product, privacy rights, overbroad, burdensome and harassing, duplicative, and points to documents produced without identifying any specifically. In each case Plaintiff also responds with the exact same answer which merely repeats the allegations in the complaint without providing any specifics in terms of facts, details, names, dates, or other support for those allegations. As such, in the absence of any substantive opposition supporting Plaintiff’s objections, there is good cause to compel further responses to the Special Interrogatories.
Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff and his attorney of record in the reduced amount of $1,800, payable to Defendant through its attorney of record within 60 days.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.