Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 20STCV29859, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV29859    Hearing Date: July 20, 2023    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Satsunderta Khalsa’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Special Interrogatory No. 61 from Defendant Siri Singh Sahib Corporation is GRANTED. Sanctions are awarded against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $1,100.

Plaintiff to provide notice.

I.       MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010(a).) If a propounding party is not satisfied with the response served by a responding party, the former may move the court to compel further interrogatory responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)  The propounding party must demonstrate that the responses were incomplete, inadequate or evasive, or that the responding party asserted objections that are either without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a)(1)–(3); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 403.)

Plaintiff Satsunderta Khalsa (Plaintiff) moves to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 61 from Defendant Siri Singh Sahib Corporation (Defendant). The interrogatory at issue asked Defendant to “IDENTIFY the author” of a cover letter prefacing an outside report conducted into allegations of sexual misconduct by Yogi Bhajan, whose alleged misconduct underlies the present action. Defendant responded with objections based on relevance, attorney-client privilege, and exceeding the number of responses, and then stated, “The letter attached to this interrogatory as Exhibit 1 was authored, in relevant part, by members of Responding Party’s Board of Trustees. At the time of the release of the letter, the Responding Party’s Board of Trustees consisted of the following individuals.” (Motion Exh. 3.) The response then listed the names of 15 individuals.

Plaintiff contends a further response is required because Defendant’s response to the interrogatory is evasive. Instead of identifying the author of the letter, the response states it was authored by unspecified members of the board of trustees, and then lists, not the members of the board who purportedly authored the letter, but the names of all members of the board. (Motion at p. 3.)

Defendant in opposition contends that it responded properly to the interrogatory with the information requested. (Opposition at p. 5.) Defendant further argues that Plaintiff in the meet-and-confer process did not attempt to address Defendant’s objections to the interrogatory. (Opposition at pp. 5–6.) Defendant finally argues that Plaintiff has engaged in improper discovery misconduct by scheduling the depositions for each of the 15 board members listed in Defendant’s response. (Opposition at pp. 6–7.)

Plaintiff is correct that a further response is required to Interrogatory No. 61. “Each answer in a 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).) Here, the interrogatory asked Defendant to identify who wrote a given letter, and Defendant did not do so in a complete and straightforward way. Defendant instead stated that the letter was written by “members of the Responding Party’s Board of Trustees,” but did not identify which members authored the letter. Defendant instead listed all members of the board of trustees, without claiming that all members of the board wrote the letter. This response was evasive.

It is of no moment that Plaintiff did not confer specifically regarding Defendant’s objections, as Defendant in opposition places no weight upon those objections in its opposition to the motion and does not attempt to support them. Defendant, as the proponent of the objections, has the burden of supporting them, and the failure to do so here strongly suggests that any effort to confer as to their basis would not have obviated the motion or limited the issues now before the court. (See Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220 [affirming the “long-established procedural rule that he who asserts the affirmative of an issue has the burden of proving it”].)

The motion is therefore GRANTED.

II.    SANCTIONS

Statute provides that the court shall impose sanctions upon a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or requests for admission, absent substantial justification otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300, subd. (d); 2031.310, subd. (h); 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff seeks $2,200.00 in sanctions, representing four hours of attorney work at $550 per hour. (Osten Decl. ¶¶ 5–6.)

Sanctions are awarded against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $1,100.