Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV01106, Date: 2025-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 23CHCV01106    Hearing Date: May 7, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO

Motion filed: 1/22/25

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Allen Avis Lax

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Convergint Technologies, LLC

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Convergint Technologies, LLC to serve further, verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s second set of Form Interrogatories, Nos. 17.1.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from an automotive collision on February 2, 2022, which allegedly caused injury and damages to Plaintiff.

On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff Allen Avis Lax (“Plaintiff” or “Lax”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Kevin Balmore Pinopalacios (“Pinopalacios”), Enterprise FM Trust, Convergint Tech, Convergint Technologies, LLC, and Does 1 to 20, alleging two causes of action: (1) motor vehicle negligence, and (2) general negligence. Subsequently, on June 2, 2023, Defendants Pinopalacios and Convergint Technologies, LLC filed their respective Answers to the Complaint.

On October 31, 2023, the Court Clerk entered a dismissal without prejudice, at Plaintiff’s request, as to Defendants Enterprise FM Trust and Convergint Tech.

On January 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two (the “Motion”). Subsequently, on April 24, 2025, Defendant Convergint Technologies, LLC (“Convergint”) filed an Opposition, and on April 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Reply.

ANALYSIS

“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).)

A.    Procedural Requirements

1.      Timeliness

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (c), notice of a motion to compel further responses must be given within 45 days following the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or by a later date agreed-upon in writing, failing which the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); but see Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 134-136 [suggesting that the 45-day deadline does not apply to (i.e., it does not begin to run with service of) objections-only responses; it only applies to responses that are required to be verified].)

The 45-day deadline “is ‘jurisdictional’ in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

“Any period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court days[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel, Paymon A. Khatibi (“Khatibi”), declares that Convergint served its initial responses to Plaintiff's second set of Form Interrogatories (“FROG”) on September 16, 2024, in accordance with an extended deadline previously granted by Plaintiff. (Khatibi Decl. ¶¶ 3, 10.) On October 15, 2024, Plaintiff obtained Convergint’s agreement to extend the deadline to file a motion to compel further responses to December 4, 2024, and again to January 21, 2025. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 15.) Plaintiff further asserts that an additional extension was subsequently granted by Convergint’s counsel, permitting Plaintiff to file the motion by February 20, 2025; however, Plaintiff contends that this extension was unilaterally revoked by Convergint. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 18.) Plaintiff argues that the unilateral revocation was ineffective. (Id. ¶ 20.)

The Motion was filed on January 22, 2025. Timeliness was not raised as an issue in Defendant Convergint’s Opposition.

Accordingly, the Court will proceed to review the merits of the Motion, operating under the assumption that the Motion is timely.

2.      Meet and Confer

“A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

Here, Plaintiff asserts that multiple meet and confer efforts were undertaken before filing the Motion. (Khatibi Decl. ¶¶ 22-24.)

In its Opposition, Convergint contends that its supplemental responses, served on March 21, 2025, fully resolved all issues raised in the Motion. It further argues that Plaintiff failed to engage in further meet and confer to address any potential deficiencies in the supplemental responses. (Opp’n. at pp. 2-3.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has complied with the pre-filing meet and confer requirements set forth under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (b)(1). However, given the opportunity for further dialogue before the hearing, the Court encourages both parties to engage in additional good faith meet and confer efforts to narrow or resolve any remaining issues.

3.      Separate Statement

The California Rules of Court rule 3.1345 (a)(2) explicitly states that “Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: ... (2) To compel further responses to interrogatories.” “A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)

Here, Plaintiff has met this requirement by concurrently filing a separate statement with the Motion.

B.     Motion to Compel Further Responses to FROG

“As a general matter, the statutory scheme imposes no obligation on a party propounding interrogatories to establish good cause or prove up the merits of any underlying claims.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550.) Indeed, a litigant “is entitled to demand answers to its interrogatories, as a matter of right, and without a prior showing, unless the party on whom those interrogatories are served objects and shows cause why the questions are not within the purview of the code section.” (Id. at p. 541, citing West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 422.)

Plaintiff moves to compel Convergint’s further responses to FROG Nos. 17.1.

In its Opposition, Convergint asserts that on March 21, 2025, it served responses to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, including supplemental responses to FROG No. 17.1 at issue in the Motion. (Velilla Decl. ¶ 5.) Convergint argues that this supplemental response fully addresses all issues raised in the Motion, warranting denial. (Opp’n. at p. 2.)

Plaintiff counters in the Reply that Convergint’s March 21, 2025, supplemental responses remain deficient. (Reply at p. 2.)

The Court will proceed to evaluate whether Convergint’s March 21, 2025, responses comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure and whether Convergint has satisfied the burden to show cause, in light of the arguments presented by Plaintiff.

1)      FROG No. 17.1

FROG No.17.1: “Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the number of the request; (b) state all facts upon which you base your response; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.” (Khatibi Decl. Ex. “A.”)

In its responses, Convergint incorporates its general objections, including those based on the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. (Velilla Decl. Ex. “A.”) Additionally, Convergint purports to reserve the right to supplement its objections and responses. (Ibid.) However, the Court finds Convergint’s invocation of privilege and work product protection to be unsubstantiated. The interrogatories at issue seek factual information, not communications between Convergint and its counsel, nor counsel’s impressions, conclusions, or legal theories. Absent specific factual support or a detailed explanation, the Court finds that Convergint’s blanket objections are insufficient to sustain its claims of privilege or work product protection.

Furthermore, Convergint responded to FROG No. 17.1 in connection with the following Requests for Admission (“RFA”) Nos. 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. (Velilla Decl. Ex. “A.”)

i.                    Responses Supporting RFA No. 1

Convergint’s FROG No. 17.1 response, concerning RFA No. 1, states the following (labeled (a) through (d) in the query correspond to the responses to FROG No. 17.1 (a) – (d)):

(a)   “[RFA] Request No.: 1 Admit that you owned the SUBJECT VEHICLE at the time of the SUBJECT INCIDENT. (The term “SUBJECT INCIDENT” shall mean and refer to the collision giving rise to Plaintiff’s lawsuit. The term “SUBJECT VEHICLE” shall mean and refer to the vehicle driven by Kevin Balmore Pinopalacios at the time of the SUBJECT INCIDENT.)”

(b)   “Responding Party objects on the grounds that this request is vague, ambiguous and overly broad as phrased. To the best of Responding Party’s knowledge, the Subject Vehicle was leased by Defendant Convergint Technologies LLC and owned by Enterprise FM Trust.”

(c)   “Responding Party and one or more of its representatives who can be reached through counsel of record; Enterprise FM Trust representatives;”

(d)   “The title of the Subject Vehicle which shall be produced as a responsive document to discovery requests.”

(Velilla Decl. Ex. “A,” at pp. 13-14.)

            Under California law, responses to interrogatories must be complete, straightforward, and inclusive of all requested information to the extent possible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.) Objections must be justified with specific ground set forth clearly in the response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.240.) Boilerplate or unsubstantiated objections are disfavored by courts and may be sanctionable. (See Korea Data System Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516.)

The Court finds that Convergint’s responses supporting this RFA fail to comply with these requirements.

First, the response (b) contains boilerplate objections. Convergint fails to provide any explanation as to why the request is vague, ambiguous, or overly broad, especially where the terms “Subject Incident” and “Subject Vehicle” are clearly defined within the request itself.

Additionally, Convergint’s qualification in response (b) – “to the best of Responding Party’s knowledge” suggests uncertainty or an incomplete investigation. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, interrogatory responses must be complete based on a reasonable inquiry. Convergint is obligated to provide all facts or documents supporting its claim. The qualification, combined with boilerplate objections, renders response (b) non-compliant.

Second, the response (c) references unspecified individuals without providing their names, addresses, or telephone numbers as required by the plain language of FROG No. 17.1. Identifying individuals merely as “representative” of Convergint or Enterprise FM Trust is insufficient. The omission is not cured by the production of the Subject Vehicle’s title, as it does not fulfill the interrogatory’s purpose of identifying knowledgeable people.

Third, the Court rejects Convergint’s argument that since it has produced the Title of the Subject Vehicle, it has “answered all subparts with information Plaintiff sought with this interrogatory.” (Convergint Separate Statement, at p. 5.)

FROG No. 17.1 (b) requires a statement of “all facts upon which you base your response,” and 17.1 (d) requires identification of “all DOCUMENTS … support your response.” Here, Convergint’s response (b) asserts the vehicle was “leased by Defendant Convergint,” thereby making the lease document a primary source supporting the response. Therefore, Convergint’s failure to identify the subject lease document or disclose the custodian’s information constitute a material omission that contravenes the express requirement of FROG No. 17.1 (d).

Accordingly, the Court finds that Convergint’s Response to FROG No. 17.1 is incomplete and deficient as it pertains to RFA No. 1.

ii.                  Responses Supporting RFA No. 7

Convergint’s FROG 17.1 response, concerning RFA No. 7, states the following (labeled (a) through (d) in the query correspond to the responses to FROG No. 17.1 (a) – (d)):

(a)   “Request No. 7: Admit that Kevin Balmore Pinopalacios did not receive any safety training from YOU regarding the operation of motor vehicles prior to the SUBJECT INCIDENT. (The term “SUBJECT INCIDENT” shall mean and refer to the collision giving rise to Plaintiff’s lawsuit.)

(b)   “Responding Party objects on the grounds that this request is vague, ambiguous and overly broad as phrased. Responding Party received all necessary and required safety training.”

(c)   “Responding Party who can be reached through counsel of record;”

(d)   “Responding Party has previously produced responsive, non-privileged documents as Exhibit E. Discovery and investigation are continuing.”

(Velilla Decl. Ex. “A,” at p. 14.)

Plaintiff contends that Convergint’s response as deficient, citing boilerplate objections and failure to adequately identify persons with knowledge under subpart (c) and documents under subpart (d). (Convergint’s Separate Statement at p. 7.)

In response, Convergint argues that its response is code-compliant because the document referenced in subpart (d) – Certificate of Compliance of Safety Training – was produced in discovery on September 16, 2024. (Id. at p. 9.)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s argument persuasive and that the deficiencies previously noted in Convergint’s response concerning RFA No. 1 likewise apply to the response here.

First, the Court finds that Convergint’s continued reliance on boilerplate objections, which are conclusory and lack substantiating facts, is non-compliant.

Moreover, the statement that “Responding Party received all necessary and required safety training” is itself conclusory assertion, not a factual response. FROG No. 17.1(b) requires a statement of “all facts upon which the response is based.” Convergint’s answer omits any description of the trainings that Defendant Pinopalacios received, rendering the response insufficient.

Second, Convergint’s response (c) identifies a corporation – “Responding party who can be reached through counsel of record” – not any individual with knowledge. It is evasive to rely on corporate identity alone to satisfy the requirement to identify persons with knowledge. FROG No. 17.1(c) requires disclosure of each individual’s name, address, and telephone number – information that is entirely absent here.

Third, while Convergint cites the production of a Certificate of Compliance of Safety Training, the document is not clearly identified in the response, nor is any custodian information provided as required by FROG No. 17.1 (d). Simply referencing a previously produced exhibit without linking it to specific facts or identifying a document custodian is insufficient to meet the requirements.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Convergint’s response to FROG No. 17.1 is non-compliant with applicable codes. The deficiency warrants the granting of Plaintiff’s Motion to compel further responses pertaining to RFA No. 7.

iii.                Responses Supporting RFA No. 8, 11, 13, 15

RFA No. 8: “Admit that YOU do not dispute that Kevin Balmore Pinopalacios owed a duty of care to the other drivers on the road, including Plaintiff, to operate the SUBJECT VEHICLE in a safe manner at the time of the SUBJECT INCIDENT. []”

RFA No. 11: “Admit that YOU do not dispute that Kevin Balmore Pinopalacios' failure to make a complete stop at the stop sign before turning onto Paxton Street was a substantial factor in causing the SUBJECT INCIDENT.[]”

RFA No. 13: “Admit that you do not dispute that it was foreseeable on the date of the SUBJECT INCIDENT that failing to maintain an adequate lookout for other vehicles before and while turning onto Paxton Street could result in a collision.[]”

RFA No. 15: “Admit that you do not dispute that at the time of the SUBJECT INCIDENT, you were required by law to yield to Plaintiff’s vehicle.”

(Velilla Decl. Ex. “A,” at pp. 14, 16, 17, 18.)

Convergint’s separate statement reflects that it provided a uniform response to the above-listed RFAs, stating “Unable to admit or deny.” (Convergint’s Separate Statement at p. 10.)

Convergint’s separate statement suggests that its corresponding responses to FROG No. 17.1 are essentially identical for each of these RFAs and summarized below (labeled (a) through (d) in the query correspond to the responses to FROG No. 17.1 (a) – (d)):

(a) “[RFA No. 8, 11, 13, 15.]”

(b)   “Responding Party objects on the grounds that this request is vague, ambiguous and overly broad as phrased. Responding Party is a corporation and was not present at the Incident and was not driving. []”

(c)   “Responding Party who can be reached through counsel of record;”

(d)   “CHP report. Written discovery responses by all parties to this lawsuit. Discovery and investigation are continuing.”

(Convergint’s Separate Statement at p. 11.)

Here, Defendant Convergint contends that “[t] he requests indicated in Plaintiff’s motion to compel are incomplete hypotheticals which are vague and ambiguous that Defendant cannot provide an answer to.” (Convergint Separate Statement at p. 13.)

The Court finds Convergint’s argument unpersuasive and its responses deficient.

First, the objections in response (b) are again boilerplate and devoid of specific support. The RFAs are sufficiently clear to warrant substantive responses, with defined terms and specific factual or legal inquiries tailored to the circumstances of the incident. Convergint’s separate claim of “incomplete hypothesis” is irrelevant, as it was not raised in the responses and lack merit given the RFA’s incident-specific nature. These unsupported objections fail to comply with discovery requirement, rendering response (b) deficient.

Second, while Convergint’s statement that “Responding Party is a corporation and was not present at the Incident and was not driving” may be factually accurate, it does not satisfy the obligation under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 to provide complete and straightforward responses based on a reasonable inquiry. A corporation has the ability – and obligation – to investigate through its employee, records, and retained documents. Convergint fails to address facts within its control that pertain to, for instance, its driver’s conduct, training, and CHP report to address duty (RFA No. 8), causation (RFA No. 11), foreseeability (RFA No. 13), and yielding (RFA No. 15.) This omission also renders response (b) evasive as it does not engage with the RFAs’ substance that Convergint, as a corporation, can address without being present, or could investigate through its driver or records.

Fourth, the response (c) fails to identify any individual as required by FROG No. 17.1(c).

Fifth, the statement “Written discovery responses by all parties to this lawsuit” is vague, as it does not specify which responses or their content, failing to provide clear identification required under FROG No. 17.1(d).

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Convergint’s responses to FROG No. 17.1, pertaining to RFA Nos. 8, 11, 13, and 15, are inadequate and non-compliant.

iv.                Responses Supporting RFA No. 9, 10, 12, 14, 16-22

RFA No. 9: “Admit that YOU do not dispute that Kevin Balmore Pinopalacios’s failure to make a complete stop at the stop sign before turning onto Paxton Street was a substantial factor in causing the SUBJECT INCIDENT.[]”

RFA No. 10: “Admit that YOU do not dispute that on the date of the SUBJECT INCIDENT it was foreseeable that failing to make a complete stop at the stop sign at the I-210 offramp before turning onto Paxton Street could result in a collision. []”

RFA No. 12: “Admit that YOU do not dispute that Kevin Balmore Pinopalacios did

not maintain an adequate lookout for other vehicles before and while turning onto Paxton Street at the time of the SUBJECT INCIDENT.[]”

RFA No. 14: “Admit that YOU do not dispute that Kevin Balmore Pinopalacios’s failure to maintain an adequate lookout for other vehicles before and while turning onto Paxton Street was a substantial factor in causing the SUBJECT INCIDENT.”

RFA No. 16: “Admit that YOU do not dispute that at the time of the SUBJECT

INCIDENT, Kevin Balmore Pinopalacios failed to yield to Plaintiff’s

vehicle.”

RFA No. 17: “Admit that YOU do not dispute that Kevin Balmore Pinopalacios

caused the SUBJECT INCIDENT.”

RFA No. 18: “Admit that YOU do not dispute that Kevin Balmore Pinopalacios’s

negligence caused the SUBJECT INCIDENT.”

RFA No. 19: “Admit that YOU do not dispute liability in this case.”

RFA No. 20: “Admit that YOU do not dispute that Plaintiff was harmed as a result of

the SUBJECT INCIDENT.”

RFA No. 21: “Admit that YOU do not contend that Plaintiff Allen Avis Lax was at

fault for the SUBJECT INCIDENT.”

RFA No. 22: “Admit that YOU have no evidence to support any claim that Plaintiff

Allen Avis Lax was at fault for the SUBJECT INCIDENT.”

(Velilla Decl. Ex. “A,” at pp. 14, 16, 17, 18.)

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes a discrepancy between Plaintiff’s evidence and Convergint’s representation regarding its response to RFA No. 9. Specifically, Plaintiff presents a purportedly true and correct copy of Convergint’s response to the RFAs, indicating that Convergint responded “Deny” as to RFA No. 9 (Khatibi Decl. Ex. “C,” at p. 10), whereas Convergint’s separate statement states that its response to RFA No. 9 is “Unable to admit or deny.” (Convergint’s Separate Statement at p. 14.)

The Court elects to rely on Plaintiff’s evidence, as the Separate Statement is not admissible evidence but a procedural document summarizing arguments (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(c).)

 Convergint’s responses to FROG No. 17.1, pertaining to all the above-listed RFAs, state the following (labeled (a) through (d) in the query correspond to the responses to FROG No. 17.1 (a) – (d)):

“(a) [RFA No. 9, 10, 12, 14, 16-22.]

(b)   Responding Party objects on the grounds that this request is vague, ambiguous and

overly broad as phrased. Subject to these objections, Responding Party states that it is not in possession of sufficient information to provide a complete response to this

interrogatory at this time, and that Responding Party disputes the facts alleged in the Request for Admission. Discovery is continuing.

(c)   Responding Party and Defendant Convergint Technologies LLC who can be reached through counsel of record;

(d)   None known at the present time. Discovery and investigation are continuing.

(Convergint’s Separate Statement at pp. 16-17.)

            As discussed in detail previously, the Court overrules the boilerplate objections asserted in the above responses.

            The Court finds that response (b) is inadequate. Although the statement “not in possession of sufficient information” aligns with its RFA response to RFA No. 10 – “Unable to admit or deny,” it fails to provide any facts indicating what inquiries were made, what information is lacking, or why it is presently unable to respond. Similarly, its vague references to “disputed facts,” without elaboration, are conclusory and noncompliant.

            Additionally, Convergint’s response (b) lacks a narrative of facts as required by FROG No. 17.1. It fails to articulate any facts supporting its denial of claims such as Pinopalacios’s failure to maintain a proper lookout (RFA No. 12) or failure to yield (RFA No. 16); causation or negligence (RFA Nos. 14, 17, 18); Plaintiff’s harm or lack of fault (RFA 20, 21, 22); or Convergint’s own lack of liability (RFA No. 19.) Convergint’s corporate status does not excuse the lack of facts. It must inquire through agents or records to provide facts supporting its responses.

Moreover, the response (c) fails to identify any individual as required by FROG No. 17.1(c).

            Furthermore, response (d) claiming lack of documents contradicts its denials, as denying claims like negligence (RFA No. 18) or liability (RFA No. 19) logically implies reliance on some form of evidentiary basis, whether in the form of records, reports, or internal documents. The failure to identify any such documents raises concern of evasiveness.

            Accordingly, the Court finds Convergint’s responses to FROG No. 17.1, pertaining to the above-listed RFAs, are deficient and non-compliant.

            Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Allen Avis Lax’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, is GRANTED.

Defendant Convergint Technologies, LLC is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant supplemental responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 17.1, within 20 days.

Moving party to give notice.