Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2022-01240264, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Margaret Schaffer's motion to compel Defendant City of Brea to serve further responses to special interrogatories, set two, numbers 29-31, is granted. Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant to serve further responses to demand for production or inspection of documents, set two, numbers 20-36, is denied.
Plaintiff served and filed a reply declaration in support of its single reply in support of both motions. “The general rule of motion practice . . . is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers . . . ‘[T]he inclusion of additional evidentiary matter with the reply should only be allowed in the exceptional case . . . ’ and if permitted, the other party should be given the opportunity to respond.” (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-1538.) Reply evidence should not address substantive issues in the first instance but only fill gaps in the evidence created by opposition. (Id. at p. 1538.) Here, Plaintiff’s reply evidence responds to an issue raised in the oppositions. The court exercises its discretion to consider the reply evidence. Defendant may address the reply evidence during oral argument.
There is no dispute the motions are timely or that Plaintiff sufficiently met and conferred before bringing these motions.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
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.)
Plaintiff is not required to show good cause for her interrogatories. (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)
Defendant did not justify any of its objections. Contrary to Defendant’s contention that its responses are Code-compliant, Defendant’s responses are not responsive to the interrogatories at issue. Although Defendant contends it does not have documents that would provide the requested information, that is not what the interrogatories seek. If what Defendant is asserting is that it is unable to respond to the interrogatories or that it does not have the information to respond to the interrogatories, then it must provide Code-compliant responses. The responses provided are not Code-compliant. Furthermore, Defendant asserted that it would be supplementing some of the interrogatories, but no further response was served. (Thomasson Decl., at ¶ 11, Exh. G [page 52 of 54 of the PDF].) Accordingly, the motion is granted.
Within 15 days of the notice of ruling, Defendant shall serve verified further Code-compliant responses, without objections.
Within 30 days of the notice of ruling, Defendant shall pay sanctions in the amount of $1,644.95 to Law Office of Christy L. Thomasson.
DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION
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.)
Plaintiff did not show good cause for the requests in her declaration or supporting evidence. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
The court declines to award any sanctions.
Plaintiff shall give notice of the rulings.