Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 20-01151221, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

(1) Motion to Compel Answers to Special Irogs (2) Motion to Compel Production

Tentative Ruling:  Plaintiff WSA Distributing, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to First Set of Special Interrogatories and to Second Set of Requests for Production is DENIED. 

On October 22, 2021, Plaintiff propounded special interrogatories, set one and demand for inspection of documents, set two.  (Declaration of Po-En Terence Liao iso MTC re RFPs, ¶ 2.)  Defendant TCT Mobile (US), Inc. served its initial responses to this discovery on December 3, 2021.  (Id., ¶¶ 3-4.)  Defendant served verified supplemental responses on January 4, 2022.  (Id., ¶ 8.)  On February 11, 2022, Defendant served further verified Second Supplemental Responses.  (Id., ¶ 15.) 

The Separate Statement in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production incorporates only Defendant’s first supplemental responses and not the Second Supplemental Responses.  (See Liao Decl. iso MTC re RFPs, Ex. L.)  The Separate Statement in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories also incorporates only Defendant’s first supplemental responses and not the Second Supplemental Responses.  (See Liao Decl. iso MTC re SROGs, Ex. L.) 

The Separate Statements are deficient.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(c) [separate statement must include the text of each response and any further responses or answers].)

Moreover, Plaintiff’s argument is that Defendant has inappropriately refused to respond to both the RFPs and SROGs at issue as to the Jitterbug Smart 2 on the meritless contention that the Smart 2 is outside the scope of the parties’ agreement.  Defendant’s Second Supplemental Responses indicate Defendant is willing to produce documents regarding the Smart 2 phones upon reaching an agreement on a protective order.  (See, e.g., Liao Decl. to MTC re RFPs, Ex. L at pp. 15-17 [Second Supplemental Response to RFP Nos. 10, 11, 12].)  They also indicate Defendant understands the disputed RFPs to include the Jitterbug Smart and Jitterbug Smart 2 pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer efforts.  (See, e.g., id., Ex. L at pp. 23.)  Defendant’s Second Supplemental Responses state that Defendant is open to meeting and conferring regarding both the Jitterbug Smart and Smart 2 phones.  (See, e.g., Liao Decl. iso MTC re SROGs, Ex. L at pp. 18-20.)  Further, Defendant has now agreed to supplement its interrogatory responses to provide the cost of labor per unit for the Smart 2.  (Id., Ex. R.)

Thus, it appears that Defendant has withdrawn the assertion that any documents or information related to the Jitterbug Smart 2 are irrelevant and outside the scope of the MSA/SOW here, which renders the Motions as moot.

Given the foregoing, the Motions are DENIED.  No sanctions will be awarded. 

Plaintiff to give notice.