Judge Gary I. Micon, Case Number: 23CHCP00073, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCP00073, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCP00073 Hearing Date: May 9, 2024 Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 5-9-24

Case #23CHCP00073, Sherry Goldsmith vs. Valentine Goelz, et al.

Trial Date: 2-5-25

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Sherry Goldsmith

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Jan Stanley Mason

RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendant Mason’s further responses to form interrogatories, numbers 2.6 and 2.11, as well as sanctions

RULING: Motion to compel further responses is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Between March 17, 2023 and March 30, 2023, Plaintiff Sherry Goldsmith (Plaintiff) propounded a set of form interrogatories on Defendants Valentine Goelz, Mark Goelz, Jan Mason, Roy & Val Tool Grinding, and Electropath (Defendants). Defendants were afforded several extensions to serve their responses. (See Castellanos Decl. ¶¶ 5-11.) By July 23, 2023, Defendants served their responses, and Plaintiff found them to be deficient. (Id. at ¶ 12; Exh. 9.) On July 28, 2023, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter regarding the deficiencies in those responses. (Id. at ¶ 13, Exh. 10.) The parties attempted to meet and confer further on the issue of supplementing these responses, but at the time of filing the instant motions, Defendants had not served their supplemental responses. (Id. at ¶¶ 14-18, Exhs. 11-14.) Presently, Plaintiff only seeks further responses from Defendant Jan Mason (Mason).

On January 2, 2024, Defendant Mason filed his opposition papers to the instant motion. Thereafter, on January 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed her reply.

On January 18, 2024, the Court directed the parties to meet and confer further on the issues identified in the instant motion and to file a joint status report regarding a possible resolution by April 18, 2024.

By March 28, 2024, the hearing for the instant motion had been inadvertently taken off calendar, and as a result, Plaintiff moved ex parte to reset the hearing as to Defendant Mason only. The court granted the ex parte application on March 29, 2024.

On April 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a status report regarding the instant motion, indicating that Plaintiff had resolved her discovery issues with all defendants except for Defendant Mason. Plaintiff further indicated that the motion against Defendant Mason only concerns form interrogatories numbers 2.6 and 2.11.

On May 2, 2024, Defendant Mason filed a supplemental opposition without leave of court. On May 3, 2024, Plaintiff objected to the supplemental opposition. On May 6, 2024, Defendant Mason filed his response to Plaintiff’s objections.

The following are the interrogatories and their respective responses at issue:

Form Interrogatory 2.6:

State:

(a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of your present employer or place of self-employment; and

(b) the name, ADDRESS, dates of employment, job title, and nature of work for each employer or self-employment you have had from five years before the INCIDENT until today.

Response to Form Interrogatory 2.6:

Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous as to the use of the term “INCIDENT” given that the events giving rise to the Complaint occurred over a period of time and involved numerous issues and facts and thus making the use of the term “INCIDENT” improper. This particular Form Interrogatory is more appropriately used in matters involving one distinct event, such as a car accident. Responding Party also objects to this interrogatory as it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the right to privacy provided by any statute and/or under Article I of the Constitution of the State of California. Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive, and intended to cause Responding Party unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and/or under burden and expense (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1030.090, subd. (b).)

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, the Preliminary Statement, and based upon Responding Party’s “good faith” understanding of this Request, Responding Party - on behalf of himself only -responds as follows:

(a) Law Offices of Jan Stanley Mason, 1188 E. Colorado Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91106

(b) Legal services-Since 1980

Form Interrogatory 2.11:

At the time of the INCIDENT were you acting as an agent or employee for any PERSON? If so, state:

(a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of that PERSON: and

(b) a description of your duties.

Response to Interrogatory 2.11:

Yes

(a) Valentine Goelz, 10131 Canoga Ave., Chatsworth, CA, 818-341-9979

(b) Legal Services

Plaintiff contends that these responses are incomplete and include a meritless objection. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Defendant Mason for costs and attorney fees incurred in connection with this motion.

ANALYSIS

Procedural Issue

As a preliminary matter, the court declines to consider Defendant Mason’s supplemental opposition that was filed without leave of court. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d) only contemplates the submission of moving, opposition and reply papers. Defendant Mason has effectively submitted new arguments within his supplemental opposition, and if this tactic is disallowed in reply papers, then the same follows for supplemental oppositions. (See Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-1538.)

Form Interrogatories

To compel a further response to interrogatories, the movant can show that: (1) the responding party’s answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete (CCP § 2030.300(a)(1)); (2) the responding party’s exercise of the option to produce documents in response to an interrogatory was unwarranted or the required specification of those documents was inadequate (CCP § 2030.300(a)(2)); and (3) the responding party’s objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general (CCP § 2030.300(a)(3); see, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550 (Williams) [defendant’s argument that plaintiff was required to establish good cause or prove merits of underlying claim before propounding interrogatories without merit]).

In this case, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Mason’s responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatory numbers 2.6 and 2.11 are incomplete because the responses fail to fully respond to the interrogatories in question and include a meritless objection. As to each interrogatory, Defendant Mason objected on the basis that the term “Incident” is vague. The term “Incident” is defined as the events that have given rise to the complaint. Based on this definition, the court does not find the term to be vague. Moreover, Defendant Mason has failed to substantiate his objection within his opposition. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

As to his response to interrogatory no. 2.6, Defendant Mason provides the following: “(a) Law Offices of Jan Stanley Mason, 1188 E. Colorado Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91106 [¶] (b) Legal services — Since 1980.” This response is incomplete because it does not include the phone number, “the name, ADDRESS, dates of employment, job title, and nature of work for each employer or self-employment [Defendant] had from five years before the INCIDENT until today.” Thus, further responses are necessary for this interrogatory.

Next, as to interrogatory no. 2.11, Defendant Mason responding in the affirmative, identifying Defendant Valentine Goelz as his principal and stating that he provided legal services. At first blush, this response appears to be complete. This is further evidence by the fact that Plaintiff’s motion and separate statement are devoid of any argument pertaining to this response by Defendant Mason. Instead, Plaintiff focused on Defendants Valentine Goelz and Mark Goelz’s response. Therefore, further responses are not warranted for this interrogatory.

Accordingly, the motion is granted in part as to interrogatory no. 2.6 and denied in part as to interrogatory no. 2.11.

Sanctions

Pursuant to CCP § 2030.300(d), “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 to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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.”

Because Plaintiff was not completely successful in her motion, the court determines that Defendant Mason was justified in opposing the instant motion. (See CCP § 2030.300(d).) Additionally, because Plaintiff’s request for sanctions had initial applied to multiple defendants, it would be unjust to award sanctions in the amount requested. (Ibid.)

Accordingly, the request for monetary sanctions is denied.

ORDER

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Mason to further responses is granted in part as to interrogatory no. 2.6 only. The motion is denied as to the remainder

2. Defendant Mason is ordered to serve supplemental responses within thirty (30) days.

3. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.