Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 21-01225035, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Irogs

Tentative Ruling:  Plaintiff Griffin Burke (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel further responses to his Special Interrogatories, Set Two by Defendant Kamryn Whitney Court Reporting (“Defendant”). 

Plaintiff contends further responses are required because Defendant’s responses contain objections in the preface, even though Defendant’s objections have been waived, and Defendant’s verification fails to state the name of the person who signed on Defendant’s behalf.

Defendant served an amended verification to Plaintiff on July 8, 2022.  (Declaration of Jang H. Kang, ¶ 10.)  The amended verification states the name of the person who signed on Defendant’s behalf.  (Id., Ex. B.)  Moreover, Defendant has already stipulated that the objections contained in the preface of its responses can be considered waived.  (Declaration of Griffin Burke, ¶ 5, Exs. 10-11.)

Thus, to the extent the Motion seeks to compel further verification and responses without objections, the Motion is DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiff seeks further responses to Nos. 9 and 10, which ask Defendant how many depositions it completed in 2021 and how many of its clients are self-represented litigants, respectively.  In response to No. 9, Defendant states, “Responding Party does not know the answer to this Interrogatory.”  In response to No. 10, Defendant states, “Responding Party does not keep track of all the Pro Per clients, so Responding Party cannot answer this interrogatory.”  Plaintiff contends these responses are intentionally evasive and Defendant can and should retrieve the requested information from its records.

The Motion as to No. 10 is DENIED.  As Defendant does not keep track of its pro per clients, it is not able to answer the interrogatory.

As to No. 9, Defendant argues further response is not required because, based on Plaintiff’s definition of “YOU” in the interrogatory, the information is unavailable to Defendant.  “YOU” is defined as “Defendant and Cross-Complainant Kamryn Whitney Court Reporters, and its Officers, Directors, Managing Agents and employees, but specifically excluding any retained attorneys.”  Defendant states that its court reporters are independent contractors who also work with other agencies.

The Court finds further response to No. 9 is warranted.  A fair reading of the definition of “YOU” included in the interrogatory would interpret the interrogatory as asking how many depositions Defendant completed in 2021, including those depositions completed by employees for Defendant.  It would not include any depositions completed by Defendant’s employees or independent contractors for other deposition agencies.  Defendant has provided no evidence that it could not obtain this information.  Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and, if the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.)

Thus, the Motion as to No. 9 is GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to serve further response to No. 9 within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

The Court notes, as with prior motions, Plaintiff seeks $80 in sanctions, contending he incurred a $60.00 filing fee.  However, he obtained a fee waiver at the outset of this action.  The Court will deny sanctions.

Plaintiff to give notice.