Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 20STCV18473, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV18473 Hearing Date: December 9, 2022 Dept: E
TENTATIVE RULING ON
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE
Moving
Party: Plaintiff, Justine Hsu
Responding
Party: Defendant, Tesla, Inc.
Opposition and Reply Submitted. Reply
submitted late but the Court will consider it.
Moving Papers: Motion; Separate Statement;
Decl. Anum Arshad; Supplemental Decl. Anum Arshad
Opposition: Opposition; Decl. Michael R.
Carey; Separate Statement
Reply: Reply; Decl. Holly Thomas
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Plaintiff,
Justine Hsu, moves for an order compelling Defendant, Tesla, Inc. to further respond
to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 15.
Plaintiff
requests sanctions against Tesla and in favor or Justine in the sum of
$5,122.50 pursuant to CCP §2023.030(a) and (c), 2023.010(d), (e), (f), (g),
(h), and 2030.300.
This
motion is brought pursuant to CCP §2030.300.
BACKGROUND
This
case involves a 2016 Tesla Model S vehicle that collided with a median while
being operated by Plaintiff Justine Hsu with Autopilot engaged. Plaintiff’s SAC
filed on 01/21/2021 alleges eight causes of action: (1) Strict Product
Liability, (2) Negligence, (3) Negligence – Breach of Duty to Warn, (4) Breach
of Contract/Common Law Warranty, (5) Breach of Implied Warranty of
Merchantability, Cal. Com. Code §2314, (6) Breach of Express Warranty, Cal.Com.
Code §2313, (7) Intentional Misrepresentation, and (8) Common Law Fraudulent
Concealment.
Procedural
“Unless
notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified
response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific
later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed
in writing, the propounding party waives any right to
compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (CCP §2030.300(c).)
On September 15, 2021, Justine
propounded Special Interrogatories, Set Two, which comprised of Special
Interrogatory 15. (Decl. Arshad ¶8.)
On October 19, 2021, Tesla served
blanket objections. (Decl. Arshad ¶10.)
On November 24, 2021, Mr.
Kliebenstein confirmed that Justine would have 45 days from the date Tesla
served its verification to its response to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, by
when to file her motion to compel. (Decl. Arshad ¶14.)
On August 16, 2022, Tesla served
unverified “aggregate supplemental responses,” to the subject discovery. (Decl.
¶16.)
Here,
the moving party does not make it clear as to when the parties agreed this
motion could be filed. Presumably this motion is timely since Opposition does
not state it is untimely and because according to Plaintiff, Plaintiff never
received verified responses.
Meet
and Confer
“A
motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer
declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP §2030.300(b)(1).)
Plaintiff’s
counsel sent a meet and confer letter on Special Interrogatory 15 on October
28, 2021. (Decl. Arshad ¶11.) Opposition’s argument that there was no meet and
confer is unavailing.
ANALYSIS
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.
(CCP
§2030.300(a).)
SROG
15
Define
EACH of Columns D through DI on Exhibit A.
Response
to SROG 15
Tesla
objects to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory No. 15 (Set Two) as it causes
unwarranted annoyance, oppression and undue burden and expense and is thus a
misuse of the discovery process under California Code of Civil Procedure
section 2023.010. Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory No. 15 (Set Two) attaches
the spreadsheet produced as TESLA 00000001.XLSX and requests that Tesla define
all 112 columns along with 5 subpart questions that apply to the 112 columns
and 7766 rows in the spreadsheet. Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledges the overly
broad nature of Plaintiff’s request and attach a declaration stating that
Special Interrogatory No. 15 “contains six subparts which ask about 112
individual columns contained in the Excel spreadsheet Tesla produced in this
matter on February 12, 2021, as “TESLA_0000001.XLSX,” which in effect will
result in Tesla “responding to 672 interrogatories.” [Emphasis added].
Counsel’s calculation ignores the 7766 rows in the spreadsheet, which if
included would cause a significant increase in the number of interrogatories
served by Plaintiff.
Tesla
also objects to Plaintiff’s request because it is procedurally defective in
that California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060 requires that each
interrogatory be “separately set forth” and “full and complete in and of
itself.” “An interrogatory is not `full and complete in and of itself' when
resort must necessarily be made to other materials in order to complete the
question” Clement v. Alegre (2009), 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1290 (Cal. Ct. App.
2009) relying on Catanese v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1164.
In Catanese, plaintiff propounded various interrogatories to the defendant
following an eight-day deposition. (Id. at p. 1161.) Those interrogatories
asked the defendant whether he contended any answer given by the plaintiff
during her multi-day deposition was untrue and, if he asserted any answer was
untruthful, to identify which answer and all documents and witnesses supporting
his claim of untruthfulness. (Id. at pp. 1161-1162.) The court concluded each
interrogatory was not " 'full and complete in and of itself'
because they "necessarily incorporate[d], as part of each interrogatory,
each separate question and answer in eight volumes of deposition." (Id. at
p. 1164.). Here, [Tesla maintains] Plaintiff counsel’s declaration openly
admits that Tesla’s response requires reliance on other materials
(TESLA_0000001.XLSX). Thus, Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory No. 15 is not
`full and complete in and of itself' because it requires reliance on 112 columns
and 7766 rows of a previously produced spreadsheet and therefore violates the
requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060. Tesla [it says] has
met and conferred with Plaintiff on this request and is open to continue the
parties’ meet and confer efforts
TENTATIVE
RULING
The
Court rejects Tesla’s argument in Opposition that the definition of the word
“Define” provided with the discovery somehow adds subparts to the interrogatory
itself. As the Court understands, the interrogatory asks Tesla to define what
each of the columns means. “Define” is defined, but the definitions do not add
subparts to the interrogatory. Moving party is not asking Tesla to define the
data within the columns; instead, movant asks, in essence, what do the column
designations mean?
Plaintiff’s
inclusion of a Declaration of Necessity does not constitute an admission. That Defendant presumably indicated under
oath that it did not have a glossary, dictionary of terms, or other explanatory
documents to produce does not mean that Tesla cannot answer this interrogatory.
Tesla’s
objections in the response are overruled.
Motion to compel further response to
Special Interrogatory, Set Two, No. 15 is GRANTED, and the response must be
provided under oath without objection in 20 days.
Sanctions
Ruling
“The
court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or
opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it
finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification
or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP
§2030.300(d).)
Plaintiff
requests sanctions in the amount of $5,122.50. Plaintiff arrives at this number
based on an hourly rate of $375.00, 8.5 hours drafting this motion, the $60.00
filing fee, 3 hours to prepare a reply, and another 2 hours preparing for and
attending the hearing.
Defendant
argues that sanctions should be imposed on Plaintiff for bringing this motion
without substantial justification for failing to meet and confer.
The
Court awards reasonable discovery sanctions of $3,435.00 (9 hours of time, plus
the filing fee) to Plaintiff, and against Tesla, to be paid on or before
January 9, 2023. No sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff or her attorneys on
this Motion.