Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV01415, Date: 2024-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01415    Hearing Date: February 2, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Dennis Stirling (Plaintiff) brings this action against Brendan Patrick Cyr (Defendant) and Dona Maria Corral. Plaintiff alleges Defendant negligently operated a motor vehicle which resulted in a rear-end collision with Plaintiff’s vehicle and subsequent injury. Plaintiff’s Complaint states a singular cause of action for negligence.

Before the Court are two motions to compel further discovery responses brought by Defendant. Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to his Form Interrogatories Nos. 4.1, 6.4, 6.5, 10.1, and 20.2. Defendant also seeks further responses to his Requests for Production of Documents (RFPD) Nos. 1-14. Defendant additionally seeks monetary sanctions in regard to both motions. Plaintiff has rendered no opposition to either motion.

ANALYSIS: 

I.            LEGAL STANDARD 

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete, (2)¿an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response, or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (C.C.P. §¿2030.300(a).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections thereto. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21.)

Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPD

A motion to compel further responses to RFPD may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive, or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (C.C.P. § 2031.310(c).) 

A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See C.C.P. § 2031.310(b)(1).) In Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court defined “good cause” as a showing that there “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and 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.”  

If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) 

II.            MERITS

Interrogatories

The Court finds Defendant is entitled to further responses to his interrogatories.

On September 20, 2023, Defendant propounded his interrogatories on Plaintiff’s counsel via email service. (Alami Decl. ¶ 3.) On October 24 ,2023, having received no responses to discovery, Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Alami Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. C.) The meet and confer letter noted that Plaintiff had waived the right to object to the Form Interrogatories by virtue of failure to timely respond. (Id.) Defendant also asked that Plaintiff provide verified responses no later than November 7, 2023, to avoid Court intervention in the matter. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel then served verified discovery responses on November 9, 2023. (Alami Decl. ¶ 6.)

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, which seeks information about Plaintiff’s insurance at the time of the incident, is incomplete and evasive. Plaintiff’s response only stated that he was insured at the time of the incident without providing any of the requested information about the insurance policy. (Exh. E.) The Court agrees this response is in incomplete and requires further response be compelled.

Each of the remaining Form Interrogatory responses which Defendant argues are insufficient suffer from the same defect. C.C.P. § 2030.230 requires that where an answer identifies a document, it must do so with sufficient particularity. Plaintiff replied to Form Interrogatories Nos. 6.4, 6.5, 10.1, and 20.2 each by broadly directing Defendant to Plaintiff’s medical records and the police report for the incident.

Defendant’s Form Interrogatories Nos. 6.4 and 6.5 both request information regarding Plaintiff’s medical health care provider and any medication he takes as a result of the incident. Plaintiff responded to each of these by citing to his submitted medical records and bills.

Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 10.1(c), which requests the information of Plaintiff’s previous health care providers, similarly directs Defendant to the produced medical records and bills.   Defendant’s Form Interrogatory No. 20.1, requesting information regarding each vehicle involved in the collision, simply directs Defendant to the police report for the incident.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s responses do not identify any specific medical records or bills which are responsive to this request. Defendant is left to sift among the produced medical records and bills, which often contain superfluous information, and guess at which information is responsive to this request. As such, the Court finds that Defendant’s responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 6.4, 6.5, 10.1, and 20.2 are insufficient as per C.C.P. § 2030.230.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further production to Form Interrogatories Nos. 4.1, 6.4, 6.5, 10.1, and 20.2 is GRANTED.

RFPD

The Court finds Defendant has shown good cause for the further production of the documents they request, and that Plaintiff’s statements of compliance were incomplete.

Defendant’s RFPD Nos. 1-14 each seek documentation directly related to the subject incident. Plaintiff responded to each RFPD with a statement that responsive documents would be supplied. However, no responsive documents were attached to their responses. (Alami Decl. ¶ 7.) Defendant’s counsel offered an additional ten days after responses were received for Plaintiff to produce documents, but no such production occurred. (Alami Decl. ¶ 7.) At current, Defendant is left with Plaintiff’s statement that documents will be produced without any actual documents being supplied.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has rendered no opposition to this motion. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (California Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c).) Further, on a motion to compel further production Plaintiff has the burden to justify his objections thereto. Here, Plaintiff has failed to oppose this motion and failed to justify any objections to production.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to RFPD Nos. 1-14 is GRANTED.

Sanctions

As concerns motions to compel, the law only requires sanctions in the event that a party unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response. (C.C.P. § 2033.290(d), C.C.P. §¿2030.300(d).) As such, any monetary sanctions granted are within the discretionary power of the Court as per C.C.P. § 2030.290. As per C.C.P. § 2023.010(d), failure to respond constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. Additionally, it is customary to grant sanctions where a party has filed a motion to compel, and the other party fails to file an opposition. (C.R.C. Rule 3.1348(a).) 

Here, Defendant has submitted two motions to compel further responses while Plaintiff has provided no response. As such, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $702.33. This amount reflects four hours of attorney work (preparing this motion and appearing at the hearing) at a rate of $160.17 per hour, plus the $61.65 filing fee. (Alami Decl. ¶ 9.)  This amount does not include the time spent preparing a reply, as no opposition was filed. The Court finds this amount of sanctions appropriate to compensate for the cost of both motions.  

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Brendan Patrick Cyr’s Motion to Compel Further Responses came on regularly for hearing on February 2, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION TO FORM INTERROGATORIES NOS. 4.1, 6.4, 6.5, 10.1, AND 20.2 IS GRANTED.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFPD NOS. 1-14 IS ALSO GRANTED.

FURTHER PRODUCTION IS ORDERED TO OCCUR WITHIN 30 DAYS.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED FOR DEFENDANT AS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $702.33.

SANCTIONS ARE TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.  

DATE: February 2, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles