Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 20STCV31454, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV31454    Hearing Date: February 2, 2023    Dept: 61

Plaintiff ACA International, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions and Form Interrogatories from Defendant Sky Bus, SAC is GRANTED. Sanctions are DENIED.

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.)

A motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions may be made on the grounds that an answer is incomplete or evasive, or an objection is without merit. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290, subd. (a)(1)–(2).)

Plaintiff ACA International LLC (Plaintiff) moves to compel further responses from Defendant Sky Bus SAC (Defendant) to Form Interrogatories No. 17.1 and 50.1–50.6, and Requests for Admissions No. 1–23. Defendant responded to these queries only with objections — mainly based on the Plaintiff’s filing of a concurrent action based on “identical facts” in Florida — and occasionally with statements that Defendant had only lately been served with the complaint and “does not currently have sufficient information.” (FROGS Separate Statement at p. 8; RFA Separate Statement at pp. 32–33.)

Defendant in opposition argues that Plaintiff has filed a duplicative claim in Florida upon the same facts, only alleged against a different entity — Skybus Jet Cargo, Inc. (Fischer Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Although Defendant is not a party to the Florida action, the complaint in that case alleges that Defendant Skybus Jet Cargo, Inc. is the alter ego of Defendant. (Fischer Decl. Exh. A, ¶ 14.) Defendant claims that it was served with the Complaint in this action in August 2022, and that the Florida action has progressed into discovery and into substantial motion practice. (Fischer Decl. ¶¶ 4–5.) Although Defendant attempted to forestall the instant motion and obtain a stay in this action by agreement, Plaintiff did not agree. (Fischer Decl. ¶ 6.)

Defendant’s opposition is unpersuasive. Defendant was served with the Complaint in August 2022. Defendant does not contend the discovery at issue here was untimely served. Defendant cites the Florida action as a reason not to respond, but is not a party to the Florida action. And while Defendant contends that it intends to file a motion to stay, no such motion has yet been filed, despite Defendant having had ample time to do so. Defendant’s objections are unsupported.

The motions are GRANTED.  Sanctions are DENIED.