Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2021-01179367, Date: 2023-06-16 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff moves to compel AutoNation’s further responses to interrogatory nos. 201.1, 201.2, 201.4, 207.1, 211.2, 211.3, and 216.1. Plaintiff contends that the responses are evasive.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 provides:
(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.
(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.
(c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.
A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories on the grounds that: the answer is evasive or incomplete; an exercise of the option to produce documents under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)
Nos. 201.1, 201.2, 201.4, 207.1, 211.2, and 211.3
Interrogatory nos. 201.1, 201.2, 201.4, and 207.1 ask for information specific to Plaintiff’s termination and the policies of Plaintiff’s employer. Interrogatory nos. 211.2 and 211.3 ask about AutoNation’s contentions with respect to the issue of minimizing the amounts of Plaintiff's lost income and Plaintiff’s claims of lost income.
In response, AutoNation objected to the interrogatories, explaining that it had no knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s employment because it was just a holding company. Then, "[s]ubject to and without waiving said objections AutoNation referred Plaintiff to the discovery responses from Defendant House of Imports. (Freeze Decl., Exh. E.)
If AutoNation does not have any facts in response, it must state so, rather than framing it as an objection.
Without referring to any authority, AutoNation argues that it is "common practice in litigation for parties to refer each other to responsive documents or information provided in the course of discovery." (Opp., at p. 5.) It is improper to answer an interrogatory by stating, “See my deposition” or “See the complaint herein.” If the question requires reference to some other document, it should be identified and its contents summarized so that the answer by itself is fully responsive to the interrogatory. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783-784.)
To the extent AutoNation is relying upon Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, its responses are still deficient. (See Opp., at p. 5.) Exercising the option to rely on section 2030.230 is equivalent to a statement under oath that the records identified actually exist and that they contain the information necessary to provide a “complete and straightforward answer to the interrogatory.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 784.) In order to meet the burden to exercise this option, AutoNation has to show: (1) a compilation, abstract, audit or summary of the responding party’s records is necessary in order to answer the interrogatory; and (2) no such compilation presently exists; and (3) the burden and expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for Plaintiff as for AutoNation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) To exercise the option, AutoNation must specify the documents from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) AutoNation must describe the records from which the compilation or summary can be made with sufficient particularity that they can be easily located. (Fuss v. Superior Court (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 807, 815-817.) AutoNation has not complied with section 2030.230.
Accordingly, the motion is granted as to nos. 201.1, 201.2, 201.4, 207.1, 211.2, and 211.3.
No. 216.1
Interrogatory no. 216.1 asks about AutoNation's affirmative defenses. As an initial matter, Plaintiff's separate statement does not comply with California Rule of Court 3.1345. Rule 3.1345(c) states that a separate statement is required that “provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.” It “must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response.” (Ibid.) The deficiency with Plaintiff's separate statement is not simply technical requirement. AutoNation had filed a joint Answer with House of Imports. This Answer contained 36 affirmative defenses. (See ROA 71.) AutoNation's responses to this interrogatory simply referred to the affirmative defense number. As Plaintiff recognized, AutoNation's Answer was relevant to the motion on this interrogatory. (See Freeze Decl., Exh. A.) Yet, Plaintiff did not take the additional step to summarize each of the affirmative defenses. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c)(6).) As a result, the separate statement was incomplete and required the court to review other documents to determine the context of the responses. On that basis alone, the court could have denied the motion as to no. 216.1. (See Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.)
Nevertheless, the court will address the merits of the motion as to this interrogatory response. In response, AutoNation objected to the interrogatories, explaining that it had no knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s employment because it was just a holding company. Then, "[s]ubject to and without waiving said objections," AutoNation responded. (Freeze Decl., Exh. E, at p. 21.) If AutoNation does not have any facts in response, it must state so, rather than framing it as an objection.
The response as to affirmative defense no. 27 (lack of causation of any psychological disorder) is sufficient.
Some of the 36 affirmative defenses are not truly affirmative as they are merely denials or assert that the Complaint failed to sufficiently plead facts (affirmative defense nos. 3, 14, 20, 21), do not appear applicable (affirmative defense no. 1 [not responsible for acts of DOES]), or are neither denials nor new matters at all (affirmative defense nos. 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 30). (California Academy of Sciences v. County of Fresno (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1436, 1442; State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 721, 725; FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384; 5 Witkin, Cal. Proc. (5th ed. 2008) Pleading, § 1082, p. 515.) Accordingly, the court finds sufficient AutoNation's interrogatory responses as to affirmative defense nos. 1, 3, 12, 14, 16-21, 25, 27, and 30.
The responses as to the remaining affirmative defenses are evasive or incomplete, as set forth below.
AutoNation's interrogatory response failed to address affirmative defense nos. 11, 26, 29. Accordingly, the response is incomplete as to those affirmative defenses.
Affirmative defense no. 2 is "non-liability of parent corporation or sister corporation". Affirmative defense no. 35 is "not a publicly traded company". (Answer, at p. 2.) Counsel for the parties are the only persons listed who have knowledge of the facts provided in response to subpart (a). This response is evasive. Surely, defense counsel does not intend for the counsel of the parties to testify as to the ownership structure, that House of Imports is not a domestic, publicly traded company, or the timeframe during which Plaintiff was employed by House of Imports. Likewise, the pleadings in this action (Complaint and Answer) are the only documents listed to support the facts for these affirmative defenses. These responses are evasive and incomplete.
For the interrogatory response as to affirmative defense nos. 4-10, 13, 15, 22-24, 28, 31-34, 36, AutoNation explained that it had no knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s employment because it was just a holding company and then referred Plaintiff to the discovery responses from Defendant House of Imports. (Freeze Decl., Exh. E.) As discussed above, it is improper to answer an interrogatory by stating, “See my deposition” or “See the complaint herein.” If the question requires reference to some other document, it should be identified and its contents summarized so that the answer by itself is fully responsive to the interrogatory. (Deyo v. Kilbourne, supra, 4 Cal.App.3d at pp. 783-784.) Furthermore, for some of the affirmative defenses, AutoNation's responses indicated that AutoNation had no knowledge of the "INCIDENT". (See Freeze Decl., Exh. E, at pp. 22-23.) However, the definition of "INCIDENT" is unknown.
AutoNation must provide further responses as to no. 216.1 as to affirmative defense nos. 2, 4-11, 13, 15, 22-24, 26, 28-29, 31-36.
Within 20 days of the notice of ruling, AutoNation is ordered to serve verified, Code-compliant further responses to nos. 201.1, 201.2, 201.4, 207.1, 211.2, 211.3, and 216.1 (as to the affirmative defenses discussed).
Plaintiff is awarded sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).) Within 30 days of the notice of ruling, AutoNation shall pay $3,660 to Workplace Justice Advocates, PLC.
Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.