Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24BBCV00442, Date: 2025-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24BBCV00442    Hearing Date: January 3, 2025    Dept: NCA

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is required and any party seeking argument should notify 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 argument is received.  

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

ALLEGATIONS: 

This is an action brought by Erik Vega (Plaintiff) as against Christine Oak (Defendant) relating to an October 18, 2022 automobile collision between the parties. Plaintiff alleges he was severely injured as a result of Defendant’s negligent operation of a motor vehicle at West Valencia Road and Victory Boulevard in Burbank, California. Plaintiff states a single cause of action General Negligence.

Before the Court is a Motion for Protective Order filed by Defendant. Defendant requests that a protective order issue in connection Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Set One. Defendant states that Plaintiff’s SPROG contain 64 requests, in excess of 35 interrogatory maximum provided by C.C.P. § 2030.030(a)(1). Plaintiff has filed no opposition to this motion. The Court notes that pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 8.54(c), failure to oppose a motion may be deemed consent to its being granted.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

C.C.P. § 2030.030 limits the number of special interrogatories that can be propounded to 35. A party is permitted to propound more than 35 special interrogatories where the demands are accompanied by a “declaration of necessity.” (C.C.P. § 2030.040.)  

C.C.P. § 2030.090(b)(2) permits a party receiving interrogatories in excess of 35 to move for a protective order limiting the interrogatories to 35. Such a motion can be used to challenge a “declaration of necessity” (C.C.P. § 2030.090(b)(2).)

The motion for protective order must be accompanied by a declaration showing the moving party made a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues outside of court. (C.C.P. § 2030.090(a).) Where more than 35 specially prepared interrogatories have been served with a “declaration of necessity,” and the responding party seeks a protective order, the burden is on the propounding party to prove the number of questions is justified. (C.C.P. § 2030.040(b).)

II.                 MERITS

Meet and Confer

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds Defendant has complied with the requisite meet and confer requirements prior to bringing this motion. (See Marin Decl. Exhs. D-F.)

Discussion

Plaintiff has served Defendant with a total of 64 Special Interrogatories. (See Martin Decl. Exh. B.) As previously stated, this is in excess of the amount permitted by C.C.P. § 2030.030, and thus requires a “declaration of necessity” be attached. C.C.P. § 2030.050 requires this declaration to contains a statement to the effect of “This number of questions is warranted under Section 2030.040 of the Code of Civil Procedure because __________.”

Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories are accompanied by a declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel speaking to the non-standard number of interrogatories. (Id. at p.34.) Crucially absent from this declaration is an explanation as to why a non-standard number of special interrogatories is required in this case. Plaintiff’s declaration adopts the form language employed in C.C.P. § 2030.050 but completely omits the “because” portion. The result is an unqualified statement by Plaintiff’s counsel that the higher amount of interrogatories is necessary. In short, Plaintiff’s declaration does not comply with C.C.P.§ 2030.050.

Further, C.C.P. § 2030.040(b) makes clear that Plaintiff bears the burden to substantiate the necessary of the number of request. By virtue of his failure to respond to this motion, Plaintiff has necessarily failed to uphold his burden.

Give the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED. The Court finds good cause has been shown that a protective order should be issued such that Plaintiff need not answer Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Set One. (See C.C.P. § 2030.090(b)(1).)

Sanctions

C.C.P. § 2030.090(d) provides, “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order under this section, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (C.R.C. Rule 3.1348(a).) 

The Court declines to grant sanctions in this matter.   Plaintiff did not oppose the motion and did not appear to act in a manner that was designed to engage in a misuse of the discovery process.   Plaintiff’s counsel did attempt to attach a declaration to the special interrogatory request, albeit one which did not meet the CCP’s requirements for special interrogatories exceeding 35.

--- 

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 

Christine Oak’s Motion for Protective Order came on regularly for hearing on January 3, 2025, 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: 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IS GRANTED & DEFENDANT NEED NOT ANSWER PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE.

SANCTIONS ARE DENIED

DEFENDANT TO GIVE NOTICE.

DATE:  January 3, 2025                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles