Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 20STCV46712, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV46712    Hearing Date: March 22, 2023    Dept: 61

Cross-Complainants JTI Electrical and Instrumentation LLC and JTI Electrical & Instrumentation Inc.’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, from Plaintiffs Seven Points Management, Inc. and Walnut, LLC are DENIED as moot.

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.)

Cross-Complainants JTI Electrical & Instrumentation, LLC and JTI Electrical & Instrumentation, Inc. (JTI) move to compel further responses to form interrogatories from Plaintiffs Seven Points Management, Inc. (SPM) and Walnut, LLC (Walnut). JTI specifically seeks further responses to Interrogatories No. 3.7, 8.4, 8.7, and 8.8, from both Plaintiffs. These interrogatories were as follows:

1.      No. 3.7: Asked for specific information concerning the licenses issued by public entities and held by Plaintiffs, to which they responded only that they possessed “standard business licenses;”

2.      No. 8.4: Asked for Plaintiffs’ monthly income at the time of the incident and how it was calculated, to which they responded by referring to documents entitled  “Production Report Analysis” and “preliminary estimate of costs relating to future shutdown;”

3.      No. 8.7: Asked Plaintiffs to state the total income they have lost as a result of the incident, and how it was calculated, to which Plaintiffs responded by pointing to the same documents referenced in their response to Interrogatory No. 8.4;

4.      No. 8.8: Asked Plaintiffs whether they would lose income in the future as a result of the incident, and to state the facts and calculations supporting the figure provided, to which Plaintiffs responded by reference to the same documents referenced in responding to Interrogatories No. 8.4 and 8.7.

JTI argues that Plaintiffs have failed to provide the specific business license information requested by Interrogatory No. 3.7, and because they claim lost income as a result of the incident, they ought to be made to provide the facts supporting that contention. Although Plaintiffs have cited to certain documents, JTI argues that these documents are opaque and non-responsive to the interrogatories. (Separate Statement at p. 8.)

Plaintiffs in opposition argue that they have served responses that have rendered the present motions moot. (Veeneman Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs do not present the supplemental responses with their opposition, and no reply from JTI appears in the court’s file.

Accordingly, if no reason is given at the hearing as to why the supplemental responses to these interrogatories are defective, the motion shall be DENIED as moot.