Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Reitz v. General Motors LLC, Date: 2023-08-16 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING: 

Plaintiff Dennis Reitz moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One). For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

A motion to compel further responses must attach a meet and confer declaration “showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040 [re meet and confer declaration], 2030.310(b).) The meet and confer requirement is designed “to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order . . . . This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.” (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016 [quoting Townsend v. Super. Ct. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435] [internal quotations and citations omitted].) There must be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.)

Here, Defendant contends that there was no meaningful meet and confer because “Plaintiff simply declared his requests valid.” Defendant, however, ignores that the requests are valid; these are form interrogatories approved by the Judicial Council.   Here, the court exercises its discretion to rule on the motion despite its finding that the parties could have engaged in a more meaningful meet and confer process prior to filing this motion.

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).)

Each interrogatory response 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.)

The court finds Defendant GM’s responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 1.1, 2.8, 15.1 and 17.1 to be evasive. In addition, Defendant GM does not justify its asserted objections.

Verification

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2015.5 requires that each verification executed within California must state the date and place of execution, or if executed at any place whether within California or not, state the date of execution and that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the State of California. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.)

Here, Defendant GM’s verification sufficiently complies with these requirements, stating the declarant “is authorized on behalf of General Motors LLC, as its agent, to verify General Motors LLC’s responses, and verifies that General Motors LLC’s responses are true and correct based on [her] review.” (Goldsmith Decl., Ex. 3.) The verification also includes a date of execution (April 13, 2023) and that it is declared under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California. (Ibid.)

Defendant GM shall provide code-compliant, verified further responses without objections to Form Interrogatory Nos. 1.1, 2.8, 15.1, and 17.1 within 30-days of receiving notice of ruling.

Plaintiff to give notice.