Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 21-01225035, Date: 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Answers to Form Irogs

Tentative Ruling:  Plaintiff Griffin Burke (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel further responses to his Form 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, ¶ 9.)  The amended verification states the name of the person who signed on Defendant’s behalf.  (Id., Ex. A.)  Moreover, Defendant has already stipulated the objections contained in the preface of its responses can be considered waived.  (Declaration of Griffin Burke, ¶ 5, Exs. 8, 10.)

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 No. 17.1 with respect to Request for Admissions Nos. 16 and 17. 

Request for Admission No. 16 asks Defendant to admit it had no expectation of future transactions with Plaintiff after the subject deposition as completed.  Defendant responded as follows: “Admit. We do not expect to get pro per serial litigants who would continue to use our services.”  Plaintiff contends this is a qualified admission and further response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 with respect to this admission is required.  The Court disagrees.  Defendant unqualifiedly admitted the request with a second sentence to add explanation for the admission.  That second sentence does not operate to qualify the admission in any manner.  The Motion as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 with respect to Request for Admission No. 16 is DENIED.

As to Request for Admission No. 17, Defendant correctly notes Plaintiff never met and conferred regarding Defendant’s response to this request or Defendant’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 with respect to this request.  Therefore, there has been no good faith attempt and reaching an informal resolution as to the responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 as it relates to Request for Admission No. 17, as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(b).)  The Motion as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 with respect to Request for Admission No. 17 is DENIED.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff for Plaintiff’s misuse of the discovery process.  Because Defendant’s amended verifications were not served until after this Motion was filed, sanctions are DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.