Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2021-01230297, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling
Defendant Advanced Leasing, Inc. ("Defendant") moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff Deborah Romero to: (1) form interrogatories, set one, nos. 2.6(b), 2.13, 4.1, 6.5-6.7, 8.4-8.8, 9.1-9.2, 10.1-10.2, 12.2, 12.7, 17.1, 20.3, 20.8, and 20.11; (2) special interrogatories, set one, nos. 1-26, 50-51, 55, 59, and 70; (3) request for production of documents, set one, nos. 2-3, 5, 11-19, 21, 23, 25-32, 34-38, 43-46, 48, 53, and 56-58; and (4) requests for admissions, set one, nos. 1-54, and 56-58.
Separate Statements
As noted in this July 21, 2023 rulings, co-Defendant HCI Systems, Inc.'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's separate statements have the same deficiencies. The court recognizes that the instant motions were filed without the benefit of the July 21, 2023 rulings. 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.
FORM INTERROGATORIES
Defendant’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to its set one, nos. 2.6(b), 2.13, 4.1, 6.5-6.7, 8.4-8.8, 9.1-9.2, 10.1-10.2, 12.2, 12.7, 17.1, 20.3, 20.8, and 20.11, is granted.
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.
Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer that supplies only a portion of the information sought is improper. It is also improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)
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.)
Nos. 2.6(b), 4.1, 8.4, 9.1, 20.3, 20.8, and 20.11
The responses to these requests were incomplete and evasive. For example, as to 2.6(b), Plaintiff did not address all of the areas of inquiry (e.g., job title and nature of work at Walmart or Dan's warehouse). The response was also evasive and appears to have been given without having reviewed reasonably available information to Plaintiff and without having made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information (i.e., "in Corona for approximately 6 months" and "I do not recall the address of the company or the agency, but it is in Orange County.").
Nos. 2.13, 8.5-8.8, 10.1-10.2, 12.7, and 17.1
Plaintiff served only objections to these requests. By not filing a timely opposition, Plaintiff failed to justify these objections.
Nos. 6.5-6.7, 9.2, and 12.2
For these requests, Plaintiff exercised the option under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230. In order to meet the burden to exercise this option, Plaintiff 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 Defendant as for Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) To exercise the option, Plaintiff must specify the documents from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) Plaintiff 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.)
Plaintiff's responses are deficient. 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.) 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. (Id. at pp. 783-784.) Plaintiff has not complied with section 2030.230.
Plaintiff is thus ordered to serve Code-compliant further verified responses without objections to form interrogatories nos. 2.6(b), 2.13, 4.1, 6.5-6.7, 8.4-8.8, 9.1-9.2, 10.1-10.2, 12.2, 12.7, 17.1, 20.3, 20.8, and 20.11, within 20 days of the notice of ruling.
Defendant is awarded sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,160. 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 unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff's further responses to its special interrogatories, set one, nos. 1-26, 50-51, 55, 59, and 70, is granted.
Nos. 1-26
Plaintiff served only objections to these requests. By not filing a timely opposition, Plaintiff failed to justify these objections.
Nos. 50-51, 55, 59, and 70
The responses to these requests were incomplete and evasive.
Plaintiff is thus ordered to serve Code-compliant further verified responses without objections to special interrogatories, set one, nos. 1-26, 50-51, 55, 59, and 70, 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 request for production of documents, set one, nos. 2-3, 5, 11-19, 21, 23, 25-32, 34-38, 43-46, 48, 53, and 56-58, is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is denied as to nos. 5, 25-26, 29-32, 35, and 38. The motion is granted as to nos. 2-3, 11-19, 21, 23, 27-28, 34, 36-37, 43-46, 48, 53, and 56-58.
An agreement to comply with a document demand must state whether the responding party will be complying "in whole or in part." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) In addition, the response must indicate whether any documents are being withheld based on an asserted objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b)). When agreeing to produce documents to a request, the responding party must also identify which documents are responsive to which request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, subd. (a).)
On the other hand, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 states:
A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.
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.)
These requests ask for information related to Plaintiff's injuries, past and future lost earnings, future medical treatment, when Plaintiff reported the accident to Defendants, her vehicle registration, maintenance and collision records, her investigation related to the incident, her medical treatment, liens, writings and communications related to the incident, and any work-related injury documents.
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. Defendant has shown good cause. (St. Germain Decl., at ¶ 9.) The requests appear proper and propounded in good faith.
Nos. 5, 25-26, 29-32, 35, and 38
The responses to these requests are sufficient. No further responses are required.
For instance, no. 5 requests all video footage of the incident and events occurring after the incident while Plaintiff was at the scene. After objections, Plaintiff stated: "Subject to these objections and as to this Responding Party: after a reasonable and diligent search, Responding Party is not in possession of documents responsive to this request at this time. Discovery is ongoing." (St. Germain Decl., Exh. B, at p. 5:25-27.) The court cannot order Plaintiff to produce any documents when she claims that she has no responsive documents. If Plaintiff has concealed records, the court has the power to exclude documents or other physical evidence at trial that has been concealed and that would cause unfair surprise at trial. (Pate v. Channel Lumber Co. (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1447, 1455.)
Nos. 2, 11-16, 27-28, 34, 36-37, 43-46, 48, 53, and 56-58
Plaintiff served only objections to these requests. By failing to file a timely opposition to the motion, Plaintiff has failed to justify her objections made to the requests.
Nos. 3, 17-19, 21, and 23
These responses are not Code-compliant. By failing to file a timely opposition to the motion Plaintiff has not provided any authority that permits her to not vaguely refer to "all pleadings, transcripts, discovery, and other documents that have been produced and exchanged during the course of this litigation." (See, e.g., St. Germain Decl., Exh. B., at p. 5:1-3.) She also did not provide any privilege log. (St. Germain Decl., at ¶ 9.)
Plaintiff is ordered to serve further verified Code-compliant responses without objections to request nos. 2-3, 11-19, 21, 23, 27-28, 34, 36-37, 43-46, 48, 53, and 56-58, within 20 days of the notice ruling. Any document production must comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, subdivision (a). If Plaintiff is withholding any documents based upon privilege or a claim of protected work product, Plaintiff must serve a privilege log pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivision (c)(1).
The court awards Defendant sanctions in the amount of $1,160 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 admissions, set one, nos. 1-54, and 56-58, is granted.
A response to a request for admission “shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (a).) A response to a request for admission must contain one of the following: an admission; a denial; or a statement claiming inability to admit or deny. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (b).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220, subdivision (c) states that “If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.”
“Requests for admissions . . . are primarily aimed at setting at rest a triable issue so that it will not have to be tried”. (Chodos v. Superior Court (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 318, 323; see also Murillo v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 730, 735 [“Rather than seeking to uncover information, [requests for admissions] seek to eliminate the need for proof.”].) Where responses have been timely served but are deemed deficient by the requesting party (e.g., because of objections or evasive responses), that party may move for an order compelling a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290; see Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 618, 636.)
Here, Plaintiff only served objections to the requests for admission at issue. By failing to timely file an opposition, Plaintiff has failed to justify her objections. The court grants Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff is ordered to serve further verified Code-compliant responses without objection to Defendant’s requests for admissions set one, nos. 1-54, and 56-58, 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 Advanced Leasing, Inc. shall give notice of the rulings.