Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2022-01267693, Date: 2023-06-16 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Michael Lance as Trustee of the Lewis Gene Lance Living Trust Dated May 1, 2008’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, nos. 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 10.1, and 11.1 from Plaintiff Kevin Haggadone, is granted in part and denied in part.  The motion is granted as to nos. 6.7, 10.1, and 11.1.  The motion is denied as to nos. 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6.

Late-Filed Opposition

Papers submitted after the deadline must be accepted for filing. But the court, in its discretion, may refuse to consider these papers in ruling on the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d); Kapitanski v. Von's Grocery Co., Inc. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29, 32-33.)

Plaintiff’s counsel points to the press of business as the reason he filed the opposition with only four court days’ notice, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b), which requires nine court days’ notice.  Counsel's reason is insufficient to show excusable neglect under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. (See Martin v. Taylor (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 112, 117-118.)

Legal Standard

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; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541 [“While the party propounding interrogatories may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.”].)

Merits

Nos. 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6

As to nos. 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6, Defendant contends that Plaintiff must seek out the date of medical treatment, the cost of treatments, dates that lidocaine was prescribed to him, etc.

In answering interrogatories, a party must furnish information available from sources under the party's control. “[A party] cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 711, 782; Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1504.) But a responding party is under no duty to make inquiry from independent witnesses (persons not his or her agents or employees) in order to answer interrogatories. (Holguin v. Superior Court (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 812, 821.)

Here, Plaintiff has provided sufficient information for Defendant to be able to subpoena the third-party providers for the information requested, as those providers are independent witnesses. The motion is denied as to form interrogatory nos. 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6.

Nos. 6.7, 10.1, and 11.1

No 6.7(b) asks for complaints that Plaintiff made to medical providers who have recommended further medical treatment in the future. While Plaintiff may not know the cost, he should be able to identify what complaints (as opposed to "shoulder care" or "shoulder treatment") he made to the identified doctors that warrant future treatment that he is claiming as a result of this accident.

No. 10.1 asks for complaints that involved the same parts of his body that he now claims are injured as a result of the accident. Here, Plaintiff says that he suffered an ulcer in his right foot in the most recent responses. He fails to properly answer subpart (b). He responded in relevant part “Responding party is uncertain of said information at this time.” But the question asks when his ailment began and ended with his foot, which may not coincide with his treatment of the same. Plaintiff must provide a further, complete response, to the extent possible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (b).)    

No. 11.1 asks whether Plaintiff has filed other actions or made claims/demands for personal injuries in the last 10 years, and if so to provide information about those matters. Plaintiff says “Responding party is unsure of this information at this time. Responding party had previously filed a personal injury claim in Anaheim, CA, but cannot definitively recall if said claim was within the past ten years.”  Even if Plaintiff cannot recall if the personal injury claim was filed within the past ten years, the response is incomplete.  Information for subparts (a) through (f) were not provided. Plaintiff must provide a further, complete responses, to the extent possible.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (b).)       

The motion is granted as to nos. 6.7, 10.1, and 11.1.  Within 20 days of notice of the ruling, Plaintiff is ordered to serve Code-compliant further responses to form interrogatory nos. 6.7, 10.1, and 11.1.

Defendant is awarded sanctions.  Within 30 days of the notice of ruling, Plaintiff, Law Offices of Marc P. Grismer, and Law Offices of John L. Norman shall pay, jointly and severally, $440 to Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar. 

Defendant is ordered to serve notice of the ruling.