Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV03193, Date: 2025-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV03193    Hearing Date: March 19, 2025    Dept: F43

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Anthony Azar

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Brenda F. Peluso

RELIEF REQUESTED

Order compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories numbers 13.1 and special interrogatories 31 and 32.

RULING: Motion is granted regarding FROGs and denied regarding SROGs.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Anthony Azar (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant Brenda F. Peluso (Defendant) on September 5, 2024.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicle rearended Plaintiff’s vehicle because Defendant failed to pay attention to the roadway and to keep proper distance.  Plaintiff claims he sustained damages and injuries as a result of the collision.  The complaint alleges causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence.

On October 4, 2024, Plaintiff propounded his first set of form interrogatories (FROGs) and first set of special interrogatories (SROGs) on Defendant.  Defendant served her verified FROG responses on December 4, 2024.  Plaintiff does not indicate when SROG responses were served.  On December 31, 2024, plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel a letter seeking supplemental responses to FROGs 13.1 and 13.2 and SROGs 31 and 32 by January 10, 2025.  After meeting and conferring over email, the parties did not come to an agreement on responses to FROG 13.1 and SROGs 31 and 32.

On January 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to FROG 13.1 and SROGs 31 and 32.  Plaintiff argues that she seeks sub-rosa surveillance materials from the accident including video, images, reports and the identity of the investigator who collected these materials.  Plaintiff seeks to use this information for impeachment purposes.  The requested materials are not protected by the attorney work product privilege because the materials do not contain defense counsel’s mental impressions or strategy.

Defendant filed an opposition on March 6, 2025.  Defendant argues the court should deny this motion because Plaintiff did not file a separate statement.  Plaintiff fails to demonstrate how Defendant’s responses were inadequate.  The requested sub rosa materials is protected by the attorney-work product privilege because the materials were collected at the direction of defense counsel for the purposes of preparing for trial, weighing settlement, and potential use as impeachment evidence.  Plaintiff’s attempted showing of good cause fails to overcome this privilege.

No reply has been filed.

MEET AND CONFER

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve issues outside court.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).)  Counsel met and conferred over email between January 14, 2025 and January 17, 2025, Defendant agreed to send supplemental responses to FROG 13.1(b), Defendant submitted his supplemental responses, but the responses were insufficient.  (Declaration of Conner Er, ¶¶ 5-6, Exhs. C, D.)

ANALYSIS

A demanding party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories where the responding party fails to respond or responds with objections or evasive or incomplete answers.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)  The demanding party must serve the motion to compel further within 45 days after service of verified responses, unless the parties agree, in writing, to extend the time to file.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).)  If the responding party serves unverified responses, the 45-day time limit does not run until verified responses are served.  (See Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 135-36.)

The demanding party must file a separate statement with its motion to compel further responses to interrogatories.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(2).)  “The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c) [emphasis added].)  The separate statement must contain: “(1) The text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection demand; (2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers; (3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute; (4) If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it; (5) If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth; and (6) If the pleadings, other documents in the file, or other items of discovery are relevant to the motion, the party relying on them must summarize each relevant document.”  (Ibid.)

A separate statement is not required where the court allows the demanding party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(2); see also Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(2).)  The court may, in its discretion, deny a motion to compel further production if the motion is accompanied by a deficient separate statement.  (In re Marriage of Moore (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1275, 1296; see also Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.)

The court has reviewed the documents related to this motion. Given how few FROGs are at issue, and because the FROGs and responses are provided with the moving papers, the court in its discretion reaches the merits of this motion.

Under section 2031.240, subd. (c)(1), defendant was required to provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including a privilege log.  (See Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1126-27, 1130 [requiring privilege log to include “the identity and capacity of all individuals who authored, sent, or received each allegedly privileged document, the document’s date, a brief description of the document and its contents or subject matter sufficient to determine whether the privilege applies, and the precise privilege or protection asserted.”].)

Defendant’s responses do not provide this information. 

Accordingly, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to his first set of form interrogatories number 13.1 under Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court.

The court denies Plaintiff’s requests regarding SROG numbers 31 and 32 because Plaintiff did not provide a copy of his SROGs or Defendant’s SROG responses.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Anthony Azar’s motion to compel further responses to his first set of form interrogatories number 13.1 is granted. 

Plaintiff Anthony Azar’s motion to compel further responses to his first set of special interrogatories is denied, without prejudice.

Defendant Brenda F. Peluso is ordered to serve further response to FROG 13.1 with a privilege log within 30 days of this motion.

Plaintiff Anthony Azar to give notice.