Judge John C. Gastelum, Case 22-01242207 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 22-01242207, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

(1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Irogs (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Irogs (3) Motion to Compel Production (4) CMC

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff filed three separate discovery motions to compel further responses from Defendant Do Builder & Design, Inc. (“Defendant”) for (1) Form Interrogatories – Construction Litigation, Set One, (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One, and (3) Requests for Production Set One. Defendant did not oppose the Motions to Compel Further Form and Special Interrogatories.

Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300 and 2031.310 allow a party to file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories and requests for production of documents, if it finds that the responses are inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300 and 2031.310.)

The motion to compel further must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b) and 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) The motion must also “identify the interrogatories, demands, or requests by set and number” and be accompanied by a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)

The motion to compel further production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) If the moving party establishes good cause, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully to answer the requests. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

Motions to compel further responses to interrogatories and requests for production must be noticed “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c) and 2031.310, subd. (c).)

Unverified responses are tantamount to no response. (Melendrez v. Superior Court (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1348; Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250, subd. (a).)

If responses contain both answers (i.e., fact-specific responses) and objections, the portion containing answers must be verified, but there is no need to verify that portion containing the objections. (See Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.)

Monetary sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories and requests for production, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d) and 2031.310, subd. (d).)

(1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – Construction Litigation, Set One

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s Motion fails to identify the interrogatory numbers to which Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses. This violates California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(d), which states: “A motion concerning interrogatories, inspection demands, or admission requests must identify the interrogatories, demands, or requests by set and number.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (d).) Still, the court finds it proper to rule on the merits of the motion.

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – Construction Litigation, Set One is GRANTED. The court finds Defendant’s objections without merit. Plaintiff propounded the Form Interrogatories – Construction Litigation, which has been approved by the Judicial Council of California (DISC-005). Defendant provided some substantive responses and to the extent those were provided, it does not appear that they have been verified.

Defendant shall provide verified responses without objections with 30 days of the notice of ruling.

The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,785 (3 hours at $595/hour).

(2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

Again, Plaintiff’s Motion fails to identify the interrogatory numbers to which Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses in violation of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(d). Still, the court finds it proper to rule on the merits of the motion.

The court finds that each special interrogatory propounded is compound. As such, the unopposed Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is DENIED. Likewise, the request for sanctions as to this Motion is DENIED.

(3) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One is GRANTED. The court finds Defendant’s objections without merit. Unlike special interrogatories, requests for production are permitted to be compound. The requests are directly related to the allegations in the operative Complaint and are not so overbroad or vague that they cannot be answered. The responses provided do not contain the requisite statement of compliance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 or statement of inability to comply pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230. To the extent that Defendant objects “based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product,” Defendant’s responses do not “provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).)

While Defendant contends further responses were provided, the verification submitted with the further responses is inadequate as it fails to identify who signed the documents and in what capacity that individual has authority to sign the verification on behalf of Defendant, a corporation. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.250, if the party is a “private corporation or a partnership or association,” then one of its officers or agents shall sign the response under oath on behalf of that party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250, subd. (b).) The verification provided does not establish that the individual who signed the verification is an authorized agent or officer of Defendant.

Defendant shall provide verified responses without objections with 30 days of the notice of ruling.

The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,785 (3 hours at $595/hour).

Plaintiff to give notice.