Judge John J. Kralik, Case Number: 22BBCV00744, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Jorge David Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on August 9, 2021, Defendant Tapon Kumar Saha (“Defendant”) negligently operated, owned, entrusted, and/or drove his vehicle so as to collide with Plaintiff’s vehicle and cause Plaintiff injuries.

The complaint, filed on October 12, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) motor vehicle and (2) general negligence.

On July 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”).

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s further responses to SROG Nos. 2, 4-5, 9-16, 34-36, 47, 53-60, 71, 86, 88-89, 91-97, 128-136, and 140-142.

SROG No. 2 asks that if Defendant contends that any persons contributed to the occurrence of the incident, to identify the person(s). Defendant objected that the SROG is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. In the opposition, Defendant argues that the SROG fails to state what Plaintiff wants “identified.” However, the SROG asks that Defendant identify the person(s) who contributed to the occurrence of the incident. Thus, the SROG is not vague or unintelligible. The objections are overruled. The motion is granted as to SROG No. 2.

SROG No. 4 asks that if Defendant contends that any person(s) contributed to the occurrence of the incident, to identify all communications related to the response. Defendant objected that the SROG is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible and raised the attorney-client and work product privileges. The Court does not find this SROG to be vague, as Plaintiff seeks communications (oral, written, transcribed, electronic, etc.) related to any persons that contributed to the accident. The SROG is not seeking the production of the documents at this time, but rather whether such documents exist and the identity of the communications. Whether the content of the documents is privileged is better raised with respect to document requests. The motion is granted as to SROG No. 4.

Although the notice of motion indicated that SROG No. 5 was at issue, the separate statement did not include this SROG. Thus, the Court will not address it here as no arguments were presented.

SROG No. 9 asks if Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s vision was obstructed at the time of the incident. SROG Nos. 10-12 ask that if Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s vision was obstructed at the time of the incident, to: (10) state all facts, (11) identify all documents, and (12) identify all witnesses, in support of the contention. Defendant objected to No. 9 on the basis that it was vague and that Defendant lacked information about Plaintiff’s vision. Defendant responded to SROG Nos. 10-12 with “Not applicable.” With respect to SROG No. 9, Plaintiff asks if Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s vision was obscured—this particular SROG does not necessarily ask whether or not Plaintiff’s vision was in fact obscured. With respect to SROG Nos. 10-12, the response of “not applicable” is not a full and complete response. If Defendant lacks the facts, documents, or witnesses to support the contention, Defendant should state as such. These facts are likely better in the knowledge of Plaintiff and will come out in discovery, such that Defendant can also supplement these responses after conducting discovery on Plaintiff. The motion is granted as to SROG Nos. 9-12.

SROG No. 13 asks if Defendant contends that any person’s vision, other than Defendant and Plaintiff, was obstructed at the time of the incident. If in the affirmative, SROG Nos. 14-16 ask Defendant to (14) state all facts, (15) identify all documents, and (16) identify all witnesses, in support of the contention. Defendant objected to No. 13 on the basis that it was vague and irrelevant, but also responded that he is not making this contention at this time. To SROG Nos. 14-16, Defendant stated, “Not applicable.” As Defendant is not making the contention that other persons’ vision was obstructed at the time of the accident, the response is sufficient as to SROG No. 13. Further, since he responded in the negative to No. 13, then he does not need to respond to Nos. 14-16. As such, the motion is denied as to SROG Nos. 13-16.

SROG Nos. 34-36 ask that if any person(s), other than Plaintiff and Defendant, provided any warning to person(s) within one-minute prior to the incident, to: (34) describe the substance of the warning; (35) identify all documents related to the warning; and (36) identify all witnesses who can attest to the warning. To these SROGs, Defendant responded: “Not applicable.” (The Court notes that No. 33 asked if any persons, other than Defendant and Plaintiff, provided any warning to persons within one-minute prior to the incident, to which Defendant answered, “Unknown. Discovery is continuing and defendant reserves the right to amend this answer if further information becomes available.”) As Defendant does not have any knowledge of whether any person gave warnings one minute prior to the incident, Nos. 34-36 are essentially moot. Plaintiff argues that if Defendant lacks information, he should a response in compliance with CCP § 2030.220(c), which states: “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, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” Defendant argues that he is only required to state that he does not have sufficient personal knowledge to respond fully to the SROG, but there is no requirement that he also state that he made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information. Thus, he argues that his responses are sufficient as currently provided. Plaintiff did not move to compel a further response to No. 33. As Defendant stated that he does not know of any persons who provided a warning, his subsequent responses to Nos. 34-36 regarding facts, documents, and witnesses would be moot at this time. If Defendant discovers further facts/evidence of anyone providing warnings, then he should supplement his responses at that time. The motion is denied as to SROG Nos. 34-36.

SROG No. 47 asks if Defendant took any actions to avoid the incident. Defendant responded that he had no opportunity to take any action to avoid the incident. Plaintiff argues that SROG did not ask if Defendant had the “opportunity” to take action, but rather if Defendant took action, such that Plaintiff seeks a further response. However, implicit in Defendant’s response is that he lacked any opportunity to take any actions, which means he did not take any actions. Defendant’s opposition affirms this. (Def.’s Separate Statement at p. 17, Def.’s Response to SROG No. 47.) The motion is denied as to SROG No. 47.

SROG No. 53 asks if Defendant made any repairs to the vehicle driven by Defendant on the day of the incident, within 1 year prior to the date of the incident. If in the affirmative, SROG Nos. 54-56 ask Defendant to: (54) describe the substance of those repairs; (55) identify all documents evidencing those repairs; and (56) identify all witnesses who can attest to those repairs. SROG No. 57 asks Defendant to state whether any person(s) other than Defendant made any repairs on the vehicle driven by Defendant on the day of the incident, within 1-year prior to the date of the incident. If in the affirmative, SROG Nos. 58-60 ask Defendant to: (58) describe the substance of those repairs; (59) identify all documents evidencing those repairs; and (60) identify all witnesses who can attest to those repairs. SROG No. 71 asks that if Defendant or any other person had repairs made to the vehicle that was involved in the incident during the 1-year time period prior to the date of the incident, then to state who performed those repairs. Defendant objected to the SROGs that they were irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and overbroad. Defendant argues that the SROGs could seek any information such as a flat tire, cracked windshield, replacing a burned out headlight, etc. and that Plaintiff has admitted that he has no knowledge of a malfunction/defect in the vehicle. However, the SROGs are sufficiently limited in time to 1 year prior to the incident. It may be that tire conditions, the ability to see with headlights (if relevant), issues with the engine, etc. may be relevant to the facts of the incident. Thus, the motion is granted as to SROG Nos. 53-60 and 71.

Defendant objected to the SROGs that they were irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and overbroad.

SROG Nos. 86, 89, 92, 95, 128, 131, 134, and 140 ask Defendant to state all facts in support of its 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 15^th, 16^th, 17^th, and 19^th affirmative defenses in the answer. Defendant objected that the SROGs seek the same information as FROG No. 15.1(b)[1] and that, without waiving objections, Defendant responds that he does not have sufficient information to respond to the SROG at this time. These SROGs are indeed duplicative of FROG No. 15.1, but the Court is not aware of whether Defendant responded to the FROGs and the content of the responses/objections. As such, the Court will order Defendant to provide further responses to SROG Nos. 86, 89, 92, 95, 128, 131, 134, and 140. However, as these SROGs are duplicative of FROG No. 15.1, Defendant may provide the same responses he provided in FROG No. 15.1 (if any).

SROG Nos. 88, 91, 94, 97, 130, 133, 136, and 142 ask Defendant to identify all witnesses in support of the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 15^th, 16^th, 17^th, and 19^th affirmative defenses. SROG Nos. 93, 96, 129, 132, 135, and 141 ask Defendant to identify all documents in support of the 3^rd, 4^th, 15^th, 16^th, 17^th, and 19^th affirmative defenses. To these SROGs, Defendant responded, “Not applicable.” To the extent that Defendant has supplemented his response to SROG Nos. 86, 89, 92, 95, 128, 131, 134, and 140, further responses should be supplemented as to SROG Nos. 88, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 129, 130, 132, 133, 135, 136, 141, and 142.

The motion to compel further responses is granted as to SROG Nos. 4, 9-12, 53-60, 71, 86, 88-89, 91-97, 128-136, and 140-142, and denied as to SROG Nos. 13-16, 34-36, and 47.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,581.65 for bringing this motion. Defendant argues that sanctions are not warranted. The Court declines to award sanctions on this motion. Each party was partially meritorious. While the motion was largely granted in Plaintiff’s favor, a good number of the discovery was duplicative to the FROGs and was granted to a limited extent.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to SROG is granted as to SROG Nos. 4, 9-12, 53-60, 71, 86, 88-89, 91-97, 128-136, and 140-142, and denied as to SROG Nos. 13-16, 34-36, and 47. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses within 20 days of notice of this order.

[1] FROG No. 15.1 asks Defendant to identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in the pleadings and for each: (a) state all facts upon which he bases the denial or special or affirmative defense; (b) state the contact information of all persons who have knowledge of those facts; and (c) identify all documents and other tangible things that support his denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the contact information of the person who has each document.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department B