Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2021-01230297, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling
Defendant HCI Systems, Inc.'s ("Defendant") moves to compel further responses to: (1) form interrogatories, set two, no. 17.1; (2) special interrogatories, set two, nos. 33-35, 41-42, 45-48, 50, 53-62, 64-74; (3) requests for production, set two, nos. 4-6, and 8; and (4) requests for further admissions, set one, nos. 1-25. The motions are granted.
Separate Statements
As an initial matter, Defendant's separate statements fail to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345. The separate statement is to be “a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion . . .” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c) [emphasis added].) Here, Defendant included the separate statements in with the notice, memorandum of points and authorities, and evidence, in the same document. Despite this, the court will consider the moving papers in their entirety, but cautions defense counsel to review the California Rules of Court and Code of Civil Procedure before filing motions in the future.
Untimely Oppositions
Plaintiff Deborah Romero’s oppositions to the motions to compel further responses to special interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for further admissions, were not timely filed. Code of Civil Procedure, section 1005 provides that “[a]ll papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days before the hearing.” Nonetheless, the court will exercise its discretion and consider oppositions. Defendant was able to timely file replies, and does not appear to have been prejudiced by the delay.
Objections Have Been Waived
The parties dispute whether Plaintiff’s responses/objections to the discovery at issue were timely served. The discovery was propounded by electronic service on January 27, 2023. Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (a)(3)(B) provides that 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.” Responses were due within 30 days of service. Thirty days from January 27, 2023 was February 26, 2023. Adding two court days for electronic service, results in a deadline of February 28, 2023. Plaintiff did not serve her responses until March 1, 2023. As a result, Plaintiff’s responses were not timely served. Plaintiff’s objections were waived. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.300, 2033.280, subd. (a); Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)
Plaintiff argues that because February 26, 2023 is a Sunday, the two days are added to February 27, 2023, which is the next court day. This is an incorrect interpretation of the statutes. Plaintiff relies on Code of Civil Procedure section 12a, subdivision (a) which states that “[i]f the last day for the performance of any act provided or required by law to be performed within a specified period of time is a holiday, then that period is hereby extended to and including the next day that is not a holiday.” The “last day for the performance” was Tuesday, February 28, 2023, based on Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.260 and 1010.6, subdivision (a)(3)(B). Because February 28, 2023 is not a holiday, there is no further extension.
FORM INTERROGATORIES
Defendant’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff Deborah Romero’s further responses to its form interrogatories, set two, is granted.
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, and/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.)
Here, only form interrogatory no. 17.1 is at issue. Plaintiff only objected, despite having served responses to Defendant’s requests for admission that were not unqualified admissions. (St. Germain Decl., at ¶¶ 5, 9, Exhs. B, E.) The motion is therefore granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve Code-compliant further responses without objections within 20 days of the notice of ruling.
Defendant is awarded sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $940. The sanctions shall be paid to Christensen Hsu Sipes LLP within 30 days of the notice of ruling. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to its special interrogatories, set two, is granted.
The following special interrogatories are at issue: 33-35, 41-42, 45-48, 50, 53-62, 64-74. The interrogatories ask for information about Plaintiff’s employment history, her job duties, damages, disability claim, the impact of her injuries on work and physical activities, and related medical information. Plaintiff served only objections to these. Plaintiff is thus ordered to serve Code-compliant further responses without objections to the subject special interrogatories within 20 days of the notice of ruling.
Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions to Christensen Hsu Sipes LLP in the amount of $1,160 within 30 days of the notice of ruling. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to its requests for production of documents, set two, is granted.
On receipt of the response to a document demand, the demanding party may move to compel a further response if any of the following apply: (1) a statement of compliance is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete or evasive; (3) an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)
The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery, and it must be accompanied by a separate statement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.) Absent a claim of privilege or attorney work product, the burden of showing good cause may be met by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) ¶ 8:1495.6.) To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to show both: relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial). (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117; see Kirkland v. Sup.Ct. (Guess?, Inc.) (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)
“If ‘good cause’ is shown by the moving party, the burden is then on the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) ¶ 8:1496.)
Request nos. 4, 5, 6, and 8 are at issue and ask for information about the vehicle that Plaintiff was driving at the time of the accident and any prior collisions in which Plaintiff was involved. Plaintiff only served objections.
Defendant contends that these requests are relevant to the liability and damages investigation and if Plaintiff’s vehicle had any underlying defects or maintenance problems that contributed to the incident, or she had sustained any bodily injuries that would have affected her current claimed injuries. (St. Germain Decl., at ¶ 11.) Defendant has shown good cause. The requests appear proper and propounded in good faith. As a result, the motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve further Code-compliant responses without objections to request nos. 4, 5, 6, and 8 within 20 days of the notice ruling.
The Court awards Defendant sanctions in the amount of $940 against Plaintiff, to be paid to Christensen Hsu Sipes LLP within 30 days of the notice of ruling. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to its requests for admission, set two, is granted.
In responding to requests for admissions, a party has a duty to answer as completely and straightforwardly as the information reasonably available to him permits. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (a).) A party may: (1) admit so much of the matter as is true; (2) deny so much of the matter as is untrue; or (3) specify so much of the matter as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (b) & (c).)
Here, Plaintiff only served objections to the 25 requests for admission at issue. These requests for admission focus on Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages. Plaintiff contends that the requests ask for attorney client privileged information and attorney work product, because the definition of “YOU” includes Plaintiff’s agents and attorneys, etc. The court does not read these requests to be asking Plaintiff to supply attorney-client privileged information or work product, and Plaintiff is not required to state such information in responding.
The court grants Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff is ordered to serve further Code-compliant responses without objection to Defendant’s requests for production of documents within 20 days of the notice of the ruling.
Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff is granted in the amount of $940, to be paid to Christensen Hsu Sipes LLP within 30 days of the notice of ruling. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)
Defendant HCI Systems, Inc. shall give notice of the rulings.