Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 21STLC08270 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC08270, Date: 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC08270 Hearing Date: October 6, 2022 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Fialelei Yeeseong Finau

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Fialelei Yeeseong Finau’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further verified responses, without objections, within ten (10) days’ notice of this order.

Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $540.51, to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within thirty (30) days notice of this order.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of October 4, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of October 4, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On November 18, 2021, Plaintiff Kia Patrick (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Fialelei Yeeseong Finau (“Defendant”) arising out of an alleged motor vehicle accident that took place on February 6, 2020.

On March 30, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer.

On July 19, 2022, Defendant filed Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and to Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents. On August 2, 2022, Defendant filed Notice that these motions were being taken off calendar.

On August 29, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions (“Motion”). No opposition has been filed.

II. Legal Standard

Responses to interrogatories must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a).) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, then it must be answered to the extent possible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(b).) “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(c).)

Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that” the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a).)

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).)

The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration “showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 2016.040, 2030.300(b).)

Finally, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(2)).

III. Discussion

A. Motion to Compel Further Responses

Here, Defendant propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff on March 31, 2022. (McNulty Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Plaintiff served responses to the Interrogatories on July 28, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 5, Ex. B.) Counsel for Defendant reviewed the responses and noted that responses to Interrogatories 110.1, 111.1 were evasive and incomplete, and there was no response to Interrogatory 120. (Ibid. at ¶ 6.)

On August 4, 2022, defense counsel sent electronic mail to Plaintiff’s attorney regarding the deficiencies of Plaintiff’s responses and requested further responses within ten (10) days. (Ibid. at ¶ 7, Ex. C.) Plaintiff did not respond to the meet and confer email and did not provide further responses to the interrogatories. (Ibid. at ¶¶ 8-9.)

Defendant moves for an order to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Form Interrogatories 110.1, 111.1, and an initial response to Interrogatory 120.1. (Mot. p. 3.) If Plaintiff’s responses warrant responses to follow-up Interrogatories 110.2 and 111.2, Defendant seeks responses to those Interrogatories, as well. (Ibid.)

The Court finds that the Motion is timely and accompanied by a meet and confer declaration and a separate statement.

1. Form Interrogatories

Form Interrogatory 110.1 requires Plaintiff to “[d]escribe and give the date of each complaint or injury, whether occurring before or after INCIDENT, that involved the same part of your body claimed to have been injured in the INCIDENT.” (Sep. St. p. 2.) In response, Plaintiff stated “No.” (Ibid.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s answer is “evasive and incomplete” and a “‘conclusory answer [] designed to evade’ responding to the interrogatory in a ‘complete and straightforward’ manner as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, subdivision (a).” (Ibid.). Furthermore, the response requires “defendant to guess or speculate what plaintiff means.” (Ibid.) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s response is evasive, unclear, and vague. Plaintiff brought this personal injury action, seeking medical expenses, and the information sought in the instant interrogatory should be available to Plaintiff. (Compl. p. 3.) Thus, a further response is warranted.

Form Interrogatory 110.2 requires Plaintiff to “[s]tate the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER who examined or treated you for each injury or complaint, whether occurring before or after the INCIDENT, that involved the same part of your body claimed to have been injured in the INCIDENT and the dates of examination or treatment.” (Ibid. at p. 3.) In response, Plaintiff stated “[n]ot applicable.” (Ibid.) Defendant states that Interrogatory 110.2 is a follow-up question to Interrogatory 110.1, thus if Plaintiff provides further response to the prior interrogatory, then she will have to provide a substantive response to the instant interrogatory. (Ibid.) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s response is evasive as Plaintiff requests “hospital and medical expenses” in the instant motor vehicle personal injury action. (Compl. p. 3.) Thus, if a further response is provided to Interrogatory 110.1, a further response to the instant Interrogatory is warranted.

Form Interrogatory 111.1 requires Plaintiff to “[i]dentify each personal injury claim that YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF have made within the past ten years and the dates.” (Ibid. at p. 3.) In response, Plaintiff stated “No.” (Ibid.) As with Interrogatory 110.1, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s answer is “evasive and incomplete” and a “‘conclusory answer [] designed to evade’ responding to the interrogatory in a ‘complete and straightforward’ manner as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, subdivision (a).” (Ibid. at p. 4.) Furthermore, the response requires “defendant to guess or speculate what plaintiff means.” (Ibid.) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s response is evasive, unclear, and vague. This information should be available to Plaintiff and is relevant to the instant personal injury claim, thus, a further response is warranted.

Form Interrogatory 111.2 requires Plaintiff to “[s]tate the case name, court, and case number of each personal injury action or claim filed by YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF within the past ten years.” (Ibid.) In response, Plaintiff stated “[n]ot applicable.” (Ibid.) Defendant states that Interrogatory 111.2 is a follow-up question to Interrogatory 111.1, thus if Plaintiff provides further response to the prior interrogatory, then she will have to provide a substantive response to the instant interrogatory. (Ibid. at pp. 4-5.) If a further response is provided to Interrogatory 110.1, the Court finds that a further response to the instant Interrogatory is warranted.

Finally, Form Interrogatory 120.1 required Plaintiff to “[s]tate how the INCIDENT occurred.” (Ibid. at p. 5.) Plaintiff did not respond to this question. (Ibid.) Defendant argues that he is entitled to compel an initial response as to Interrogatory 120.1 as no answer was provided. (Ibid.) Given that this is a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident and the information requested is available to Plaintiff, the Court orders Plaintiff to submit a verified response, without objections, to the instant Interrogatory.

B. Request for Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes making an unmeritorious objection to discovery and making an evasive response to discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010(e), (f).) In addition, the Court is required to impose a monetary sanction against any party that unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of a sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(d).)

Here, Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses. However, Plaintiff’s incomplete responses to Defendant’s discovery requests constitutes a misuse of the discovery process.

Defendant requests $700.68 in sanctions for expenses incurred in filing the instant Motion, as follows: $320.34 in attorney’s fees for two (2) hours spent preparing the Motion, Declaration, and Separate Statement, at a billing rate of $160.17 per hour, $160.17 for one (1) hour spent reviewing the opposition and drafting the reply, $160.17 for one (1) hour of appearing at the hearing on the Motion, and $60 in filing fees. (Ibid. at ¶ 10.) Given that Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the Motion, the Court finds $540.51 in sanctions to be reasonable for two (2) hours of preparing the Motion, one (1) hour to appear at the hearing, and $60 in filing fees.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $540.51, to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within thirty (30) days notice of this order.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice.