Judge: Erick L. Larsh, Case: 2022-01242012, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories

The Motion to Compel Further Responses, directed towards Form Interrogatories (ROA No. 56) and brought by Plaintiff Luis Quirarte is granted as follows: Defendant General Motors LLC is ordered to provide further responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories Nos. 1.1, 2.8, 15.1 and 17.1 (with respect to Request for Admission No. 14), within 30 days-notice of this order.

Initially, the Court finds that all procedure requirements have been met: The instant motion was filed on March 27, 2023, in accordance with an agreed upon extension. (¶13 of Goldsmith Declaration and Exhibit 5 thereto; See also ¶6 of Shugart Declaration and Opposition: 2:16-20 [conceding the same.]) Thus, the motion is timely pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (c). Additionally, per the Declaration of Plaintiff’s Counsel efforts were made to meet and confer, prior to this filing. (¶8-¶11 of Goldsmith Declaration and Exhibit 4 thereto; See also Code Civ. Proc., §2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) While Defendant disputes the sufficiency of these efforts (Opposition: 2:24-4:9), Plaintiff’s meet and confer correspondence addressed each interrogatory at issue in this motion and provided analysis which mirrors the separate statement. (¶9 of Goldsmith Declaration and Exhibit 4 thereto.) Additionally, Defendant’s position is unpersuasive, given Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s efforts. (¶11 of Goldsmith Declaration.)

Thereafter, the Court finds that Defendant’s responses to the subject interrogatories are evasive and incomplete, as the responses fail to provide the information requested. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, subdivision (a), “[e]ach answer in response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., §2030.220, subd. (a).) Similarly, “[w]here the question is specific and explicit, an answer which supplies only a portion of the information sought is wholly insufficient. Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) Moreover, “[i]f only partial answers can be supplied, the answers should reveal all information then available to the party.” (Id. at 782.) “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.” (Id.)

The Court notes, additionally, that Defendant failed to support any objections to the identified interrogatories. “[I]f a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on responding party to justify any objection.” (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255, citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221).

While Defendant asserted an objection based on burden, in response to Interrogatory No. 17.1 and suggested a complete response to Form Interrogatory No. 1.1 would be burdensome, Defendant offered no evidence which establishes burden or a resulting injustice. (West

Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) “The objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought.” (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) “The objection of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice.” (Id. at 418.)

Similarly, with respect to Form Interrogatory No. 2.8, Defendant’s response suggests a lack of relevance, due solely to its corporate form; however, a corporation can be convicted of a felony. (Ghadrdan v. Gorabi (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 416, 423-424 [addressing whether the criminal conviction of a corporation was admissible against an investor, to attack witness’s credibility.]) Moreover, to the extent Defendant intended the relevance objection more broadly, the same fails: “Under the Legislature’s ‘very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy,’ any ‘doubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.’” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 542.)

To the extent Defendant was attempting to invoke Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, within its response to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1, the attempt fails. Here, the identified Form Interrogatory does not “necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed,” as contemplated by section 2030.230. Additionally, even assuming it did, Defendant’s general assertion that it “intends to rely upon the documents it is producing in response to Plaintiff’s Request to Inspect,” is insufficiently specific. The provision only applies if “the party specifies the records from which the information can be ascertained.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 784.) “A broad statement that the information is available from a mass of documents is insufficient.” (Ibid.)

Based on all of the above, further responses are ordered as to Form Interrogatory Nos. 1.1, 2.8, 15.1 and 17.1 (as to Requests for Admission No. 14).

The request for new verifications is, however, denied. The Court finds that the verification provided sufficiently complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5. Ms. Mock attests that she reviewed GM’s responses and, further, attests that they are “true and correct,” “under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California.” (¶7 of Goldsmith Declaration and Exhibit 3 thereto.) Additionally, based on the above, Defendant properly had an agent “sign the response under oath on behalf of that party,” as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.250, subdivision (b).

Lastly, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not request sanctions.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Requests for Admission

The Motion to Compel Further Response directed towards Requests for Admission (ROA No. 44) and brought by Plaintiff Luis Quirarte is granted, as follows: Defendant General Motors LLC is ordered to provide a further response to Request for Admission No. 14, within 30 days-notice of this order. The request to have the admissions deemed admitted, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, is denied.

The Court finds that the verification provided sufficiently complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5. Ms.

Mock attests that she reviewed GM’s responses and, further, attests that they are “true and correct,” “under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California.” (¶7 of Goldsmith Declaration and Exhibit 3 thereto.) Additionally, based on the above, Defendant properly had an agent “sign the response under oath on behalf of that party,” as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.240, subdivision (b).

While it is true that “[u]nsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all,” (Appelton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636) and true that Requests for Admission may be deemed admitted where no response is provided (Code Civ. Proc., §2033.280, subd. (b)), Defendant herein provided adequate verification.

With respect to the request for a further response, however, all procedural requirements have been met. The instant motion was filed on March 27, 2023, in accordance with an agreed upon extension. (¶13 of Goldsmith Declaration and Exhibit 5 thereto; See also ¶6 of Shugart Declaration [conceding the same.]) Thus, the motion is timely pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (c). Additionally, per the Declaration of Plaintiff’s Counsel efforts were made to meet and confer, prior to this filing. (¶8-¶11 of Goldsmith Declaration and Exhibit 4 thereto; See also Code Civ. Proc., §2033.290, subd. (b)(1).) While Defendant disputes the sufficiency of these efforts (Opposition: 2:25-3:21), Plaintiff’s meet and confer correspondence addressed the Request for Admission at issue in this motion and provided analysis which mirrors the separate statement. (¶9 of Goldsmith Declaration and Exhibit 4 thereto.) Additionally, Defendant’s position is unpersuasive, given Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s efforts. (¶11 of Goldsmith Declaration.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (a), “[o]n receipt of a response to requests for admission, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either…(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete[; or] (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. §2033.290, subd. (a).)

In this instance, the single request at issue is Request No. 14, which asks for an admission: “YOU declined PLAINTIFF’s request that YOU repurchase the VEHICLE.” (Separate Statement [ROA No. 40.])

In response, Defendant stated: “GM objects to this Request on grounds it improperly assumes the legal conclusion that GM was required to repurchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE under the applicable law. Subject to and without waiving its objections, GM admits only that it has not repurchased or replaced the SUBJECT VEHICLE. GM denies that it had any replacement, repurchase, or reimbursement obligation to Plaintiff. Otherwise, denied.” (Separate Statement [ROA No. 40.])

The above response is evasive, as it fails to admit or deny the request, as written. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220, subdivision (a), “[e]ach answer in a response to requests 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).)

Here, while Defendant admits the vehicle has not been repurchased and denies the existence of a legal obligation to repurchase, Defendant did not admit or deny declining a request for repurchase from Plaintiff – the precise subject of Request for Admission No. 14.

Further, the objection asserting the request includes a legal conclusion fails: Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.010, a request for admission may involve “opinion relating to fact or application of law to fact.” (Code Civ. Proc., §2033.010.)

Notably, no request for sanctions was included in the motion. Thus, while it is true that Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (d) provides that “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction…against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response,” given the lack of a request, “circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §2033.290, subd. (d).)

Regarding the special interrogatories:

Plaintiff Luis Quirarte’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED, as follows.

Defendant is ORDERED to provide further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1-6, 21-24, 30-31, 33, and 36-42. **See Analysis above.

The Motion is DENIED as to seeking a new verification as the Court finds the Verification complies with C.C.P. section 2015.5.

Defendant is ORDERED to serve further responses within the next 30-days.

Plaintiff is to give notice.