Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: "Amnesty Health, LLC v. Denefits LLC", Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling
TENTATIVE RULING:
Motions 1-2: Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories
Defendant Denefits, LLC, moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff Amnesty Health, LLC, to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One). For the following reasons, the motions are GRANTED.
Each response to an interrogatory must be “complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a).) In responding to an interrogatory, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(c).) “If only partial answers can be supplied, the answers should reveal all information then available to the party. If a person cannot furnish details, he should set forth the efforts made to secure the information. He cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782.)
“Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 76; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (f) [evasive response is ground for sanctions].) 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 California 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(a).)
Plaintiff’s initial responses included identical objections that the interrogatories were overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing. Plaintiff fails to justify these asserted objections.
Form Rog Nos. 101.1, 112.1, and 150.7. Plaintiff argues that it has supplemented its responses to Form Rog Nos. 101.1, 112.1, and 150.7—effectively conceding its previous responses were deficient. Nevertheless, Defendant submits competent evidence showing that Plaintiff did not supplement any response. (Kim Reply Decl. ¶ 2.) To the extent Plaintiff meant that the purported supplemental responses as provided in the Opposition Separate Statement constitute Plaintiff’s further supplemental responses, these responses are not verified.
Form Rog Nos. 115.1 and 150.1
FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 115.1:
State in detail the facts upon which you base your claims that the PERSON asking this interrogatory is responsible for your damages.
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 115.1:
For several years, Amnesty Health is a treatment facility that specializes in providing patients with treatments. Denefits is the billing services that collections the amount owed to Amnesty Health and charges each patient an interest rate and amount. Amnesty hired Denefits to conduct the billing services for them, under the original contract Denefits carried the note and could collect the entire amount from each patient with a collection of interest. Denefits after collection then pays Amnesty that amount. Several accounts have been paid by Amnesty Health patients but Denefits has not paid on those accounts. Amnesty has attempted to audit Denefits for the amount in question but Denefits would not comply with the audit. Amnesty at this time has not been able to conduct an audit of Denefits due to the fact that Denefits will not willingly allow Amnesty to audit their own patient data. Amnesty further has found multiple patients that payouts have not been completed and sent to Amnesty Health.
Plaintiff’s response is so general that it lacks any facts to help Defendant understand the claims against it. To the extent Plaintiff argues it cannot further supplement this information because Plaintiff has been locked out of Defendant’s website, Defendant submits competent evidence showing Plaintiff does, in fact, have access to Defendant’s website. (See Singh Decl. ¶¶ 2-4.) Therefore, the court orders further responses.
FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 150.1:
Identify all DOCUMENTS that are part of the agreement and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 150.1:
Contract signed at the iditional [sic] start that is located at Amnesty Health Jeff Jones, 704-747-5846, Address 429 Roter Mountain Road Michelle Myers 704-891-7796, Address 429 Roter Mountain Road And At Denefits, LLC. 16500 Bake Pkwy Ste 100, Irvine, CA 92618
Plaintiff argues its response properly identifies the terms of service that was on Defendant’s website but has since changed. Plaintiff further argues they do not have a copy of that document.
The RFP does not require Plaintiff to produce the agreement, only to identify it. Plaintiff’s response is partially nonsensical due to a typographical error. Therefore, Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses.
Each of the special interrogatories in dispute (Nos. 1, 5-11, 13, 16) is a contention interrogatory.
Plaintiff’s initial responses included identical objections that the interrogatories were overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing. Plaintiff fails to justify any asserted objection.
Plaintiff later served substantive responses generally describing the dispute and/or restating the contention. These substantive responses are inadequate, as the general narrative response describing the parties’ dispute is in many instances non-responsive to the question asked. To the extent Plaintiff argues in its separate statement that the response to Interrogatory Nos. 6, 8, 9, 12 “was supplemented,” Defendant shows this statement to be false. (Kim Reply Decl. ¶ 2.) Lastly, Plaintiff’s argument that it cannot comply because it has been locked out of Defendant’s website is also inaccurate. (Singh Decl. ¶¶ 2-4.) For these reasons, the court grants the motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 16.
No later than 10 days after service of the notice of ruling, Plaintiff shall serve code-compliant, further verified responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 101.1, 112.1, 115.1, 150.1, and 150.7; and Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 16.
Defendant to give notice.
Motion 3: Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs
Defendant Denefits, LLC, moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff Amnesty Health, LLC, to RFPs (Set One). For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
A motion to compel further responses “shall” set forth “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) Case law provides the burden is on a moving party to show good cause. (See, e.g., Digital Music News, LLC v. Super. Ct. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224 [disapproved on other grounds by Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531]; Kirkland v. Super. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)
To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to demonstrate both: (1) 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 (2) specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial). (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2019) ¶ 8:1495.6.)
Specifically, the moving party can also show good cause by “identify[ing] a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain[ing] how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.” (Digital Music News, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 224.) The fact that there is no alternative source for the information sought is an important factor in establishing good cause for inspection, but is not necessary in every case. (Associated Brewers Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 588.)
Here, Defendant fails to submit a good cause declaration justifying the discovery sought by each RFP, but good cause is apparent on the face of RFP Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 17. These RFPs request documents and communications reflecting specific allegations and contentions in the Complaint. Good cause is not apparent on the face of Nos. 3 (documents related to all payments made by Defendant to Plaintiff) and 5 (the interest rate as set by the contract).
Plaintiff’s initial responses included objections that the interrogatories were overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing. Plaintiff fails to justify these asserted objections.
The supplemental response to RFP Nos. 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 added: “In the spirit of discovery and without waiving any further objections Responding Party answers as follows: See Exhibit ‘B’.” The supplemental response to RFP Nos. 10 and 17 added: “In the spirit of discovery and without waiving any further objections Responding Party answers as follows: See Exhibit ‘D’.”
A party must respond separately to each RFP with:
(1) A statement of compliance;
(2) A representation the party lacks the ability to comply; or
(3) An objection to the particular RFP.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210(a).)
A statement of compliance “shall state that . . . all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) A proper statement of compliance must state:
- That the production and inspection demanded will be allowed (in whole or in part); and
- That the documents or things in the demanded category that are in the responding party's possession, custody or control will be produced (except to the extent of any objections; see below).
(See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)
If the party claims an inability to comply, the response must state:
- That a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to locate the item demanded; and
- The reason the party is unable to comply: e.g., the document:
o never existed; or
o has been lost or stolen; or
o has been destroyed; or
o is no longer in the possession, custody or control of the responding party, in which case, the response must state the name and address of anyone believed to have the document.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)
Here, Plaintiff’s responses do not include a statement of compliance or a statement justifying Plaintiff’s claimed inability to comply. Therefore, the court grants the motion and orders further responses to RFP Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 17, and to produce documents responsive to those RFPs.
Defendant to give notice.
Sanctions
Moving Defendant does not divide its request for sanctions among the motions. Defendant seeks $12,717.50 in sanctions for:
- $375/hr x 12.0 hrs to meet and confer
- $575/hr x 0.4 hrs for “discovery strategy”
- $375/hr x 17.4 hrs to draft motion
- $375/hr x 21.2 hrs for reply
Here, Defendant undertook significant meet and confer efforts, which resulted in two sets of further and/or supplemental responses, which were nevertheless deficient. Defendant also obtained additional evidence to respond to issues raised on opposition regarding Plaintiff’s inability to access Defendant’s website. Therefore, the court awards sanctions in the amount of:
- $2,250.00 (6 hours of attorney work) for the form interrogatories;
- $4,500.00 (12 hours of attorney work) for the special interrogatories; and
- $1,312.50 (3.5 hrs of attorney work) for the RFPs.
Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the total amount of $8,062.50 to Defendant Denefits, LLC, within 30 days of the service of the notice of ruling.
Defendant to give notice.