Judge: James L. Crandall, Case: 20-1158998, Date: 2022-11-03 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

Defendant, Shai Grinberg’s (Grinberg) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Patrick Nguyen Huu’s (Plaintiff) Further Responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One (Motion) and Request for Sanctions in The Amount of $2,350 is MOOT as to the request for order compelling further responses.

The Motion is DENIED as to the request for sanctions from both parties.

On receipt of responses to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection is without merit or too general or an answer is evasive or incomplete. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a)(1)-(3).)

The moving party must also include reasons why further answers should be ordered: legal or factual arguments why the answers given were incomplete or nonresponsive, or the objections invalid. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)

The responding party has the burden to justify objections in response to a motion filed to compel further responses. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Grinberg moves for the following:

1. An order compelling further responses to Form Interrogatories 2.1, 2.5, 12.1, 12.2, 12.4-12.7, 17.1 and 50.1-50.2.

2. Sanctions in the amount of $2,350 against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, Daniel W. Doyle, jointly and severally.

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that on 10-21-22, he served Amended Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One addressing each of the form interrogatories at issue in this motion. (Opposition, 4; Doyle Declaration, Exhibit E.)

The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

Plaintiff served an amended response to each of the Form Interrogatories at issue in the instant motion.

Therefore, the court finds Grinberg’s Motion MOOT as to the request for an order compelling further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

Having found Grinberg’s Motion moot, the court DENIES Grinberg’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff also requests sanctions of $1,800 against Grinberg on the grounds that Grinberg is conducting discovery in a manner that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppressions, or undue burden and expense in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010.

Plaintiff asserts that Grinberg’s Form Interrogatories, Set One are unduly burdensome because Defendant and all co-Defendants are represented by the same counsel and thus Defendant already has the information he seeks by Form Interrogatories, Set One. (Opposition, 3.)

Plaintiff’s request for sanction is DENIED. The court does not find that Grinberg’s discovery is conducted in a manner that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment or pressions in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010.

In summary, Defendant, Shai Grinberg’s (Grinberg) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Patrick Nguyen Huu’s (Plaintiff) Further Responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One (Motion) and Request for Sanctions in The Amount of $2,350 is MOOT as to the request for order compelling further responses.

The Motion is DENIED as to the request for sanctions from both parties.

Plaintiff Patrick Nguyen Huu is to give notice.

Future hearing dates

11/10/22 – (2) Motions to Compel

12/1/22 – (2) Motions to Compel

12/8/22 – Motion to Compel

1/27/23 – MSC

2/9/23 – (2) Motions to Quash

2/16/23 – (2) Motions to Quash

2/23/22 – Motion to Quash

2/27/23 – Jury Trial

3/2/23 – (4) Motions to Quash

3/9/23 – Motion to Quash

3/16/23 – (2) Motion to Quash/Motion to Compel