Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV07317, Date: 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07317    Hearing Date: August 29, 2022    Dept: 61

Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc.’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories, Sets One, from Plaintiff Erica Banales is GRANTED as to Special Interrogatories No. 12, 14 and 15, and Form Interrogatory No. 2.6. The motions are otherwise DENIED. No sanctions are awarded.

I.                   MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER — INTERROGATORIES

“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.)

Defendant Kia Motors America (Defendant) moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff Erica Banales (Plaintiff) to Special Interrogatories No. 1–15 and Form Interrogatories No. 2.2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.7, 12.1, 12.2, 12.6, 12.7, and 50.2. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s responses have consisted solely of objections and, in some cases, evasive, non-responsive answers.

Plaintiff in opposition contends that this motion was filed on July 6, 2022, long before the motion to compel deadline passed, as supplemental responses were served on June 30, 2022. (Yashar Decl. ¶¶ 8–9.) Plaintiff contends that the motion has since been rendered moot by the service of further supplemental responses on August 8, 2022, three days before oppositions were filed on August 11, 2022. (Yashar Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. 1.)

Defendant in reply contends that the motion is not moot, as it is still entitled to sanctions despite any late-served responses, and in any event the responses still contain objections. (Reply at pp. 2–4.)

The motion is largely moot. Plaintiff has provided supplemental responses to the interrogatories at issue, most of which, though offered subject to objections, are straightforward responses to the questions posed.

But the motion is not moot in its entirety. Although Plaintiff has served supplemental responses, some of these responses remain deficient. Special Interrogatory No. 12 asks Plaintiff to state any incidental damages suffered, to which Plaintiff states, in the new responses, only a repetition of prior, meritless objections. (Separate Statement at p. 12; Yashar Decl. Exh. 1.) Interrogatories No. 14 and 15 asked Plaintiff to identify each time Plaintiff communicated with Defendant, or vice versa, to which Plaintiff only responded that she had made no communications prior to retaining counsel, which was in both instances non-responsive. (Separate Statement at pp. 13–15; Yashar Decl. Exh. 1.) Moreover, Form Interrogatory No. 2.6 seeks Plaintiff’s employment history, for which Plaintiff only responded by stating that she is currently unemployed, without providing information concerning prior employers. (Separate Statement at p. 3; Yashar Decl. Exh. 1.)

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to Special Interrogatories No. 12, 14 and 15, and Form Interrogatory No. 2.6. The motion is otherwise DENIED.

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).)

Defendant seeks $1,000.00 in sanctions. (Snider Decl. ¶ 11.) Although the motion is largely mooted by the belated service of compliant discovery, such service does not necessarily moot the issue of sanctions. (See CRC Rule 3.1348, subd. (a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.)

No sanctions are appropriate here. Although Plaintiff’s service of further responses was tardy, it was Defendant who moved to compel further responses mere days after the service of supplemental responses, with more than a month left before the deadline to file a motion to compel further. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (c).) It is far from clear that judicial intervention was necessary in this case. Thus no sanctions are awarded.