Judge Deborah C. Servino, Case 30-2021-01197395 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2021-01197395, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Labor Commissioner, State of California’s motion to compel Defendant SNP Pharmacy, LLC (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to form interrogatories, is granted.

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff has combined into one motion, three distinct types of motions to compel further responses (requests for production of documents, specially prepared interrogatories, and form interrogatories) against different combinations of the five Defendants. As noted in a well-regarded practice guide, this is not a recommended practice. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) ¶ 9:24.4.) Plaintiff improperly made one reservation for the motion. A single reservation does not properly allot Court resources to address the combined motion. As a result, the motion was divided up to be heard over a number of hearing dates. Plaintiff’s combined motion makes it particularly difficult for the court to follow the papers when only one of the motions is currently being heard. The notice of motion also does not identify the form interrogatories at issue or any of the other discovery at issue in the combined motion by set and number. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(d).)

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to its first set of form interrogatories, nos. 15.1 and 17.1.

No. 15.1

Defendant responded to this interrogatory with only objections, and stated it “will not respond to this request.” (Amended Sep. Stmt., at p. 3 [ROA 245].) Defendant argues that, because it answered with a general denial and asserted affirmative defenses, (Answer [ROA 91]), and “given that this case was still in the early stages,” it was in “no position to determine on behalf of the Plaintiff which allegations of the Complaint Plaintiff contends are essential to the claim.” Defendant further contends that “hav[ing] to go back and select the individual allegations it finds ‘material’ to a particular claim of Plaintiff violates the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine.” (Opp. to Sep. Stmt. at pp. 4-5 [ROA 241].)

While it is not proper, generally, to ask a party to state all their contentions, (see Flora Crane Service, Inc. v. Superior Court In and For City and County of San Francisco (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 767, 780), section 2030.010 expressly states that an interrogatory “may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010, subd. (b); see Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 281.) To the extent Defendant was not required to identify the material allegations that it is denying in its Answer, this objection would not fully excuse Defendant’s failure to provide any response at all. Rather, “[i]f an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (b).) Defendant is not justified in failing to provide any facts, or other requested information, on which its general denial was based.

Likewise, Defendant’s objections do not excuse a response with respect to the factual basis of the affirmative defenses it asserted in its Answer, which was filed on November 16, 2021. It is well-understood that “[e]ach answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) If Defendant currently has no facts to support its affirmative defenses, it must say so. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) ¶ 6:459 [noting that “interrogatory 15.0 on the DISC-001 Official Form Interrogatories is an inexpensive and effective way to require defendant to explain the basis for affirmative defenses”].) It is improper to simply object and reserve the right to serve a supplemental response at some later date. Accordingly, a further response is warranted.

No. 17.1

Here, Defendant responded with only objections, and a statement that it “will not respond to this request.” After this motion was filed, Defendant served (unverified) supplemental responses to the accompany requests for admission. In its supplemental responses, Defendant responded with an admission to each request for admission, except for nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Defendant claims that the motion, with respect to no. 17.1, has been rendered moot by service of its supplemental responses. The court disagrees. No. 17.1 asks if each response “to each request for admission served with these interrogatories” is an unqualified admission. If not, then the responding party must answer subdivisions (a) through (d). The fact that Defendant served supplemental responses to the same requests for admission that were served with the subject interrogatory, does not prevent the court from ordering Defendant to provide a further response to no. 17.1, where, as here, Defendant has never provided a proper response to this interrogatory.

Accordingly, within 20 days of the notice of ruling, Defendant is ordered to provide further, verified and Code-compliant responses to form interrogatories nos. 15.1 and 17.1.

Plaintiff is awarded monetary sanctions against Defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2023.030.) Within 30 days of the notice of ruling, SNP Pharmacy, LLP shall pay $1,110 to the State of California.

Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.