Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case 20STCV18721 2023-03-20 Tentative Ruling

On May 15, 2020, plaintiff Arman Dayan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Stanley Schuster (“Defendant”) arising from a May 7, 2019 pedestrian and motor vehicle collision.

On December 22, 2022, Defendant filed this motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three, Nos. 32, 34, and 35.

On February 27, 2023, the parties engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference, but could not resolve the discovery issues. The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer by March 8, 2023 in hopes that a resolution could be reached.

On March 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. Defendant filed a reply on March 13, 2023.

propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to interrogatories if an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete or an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1)-(2).)

The Code of Civil Procedure contemplates three forms of proper responses to an interrogatory: (1) an answer containing the information sought to be discovered; (2) an exercise of the party’s option to produce writings; and (3) an objection to the particular interrogatory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210, subd. (a)(1)-(3).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 further provides that each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. 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, subds. (a), (b), (c).)

subdivision E of the Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts for the County of Los Angeles, Central District (“Eighth Amended Hub Order”), Personal Injury (“PI”) Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC). PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.

After meeting and conferring about available dates for an IDC, the moving/propounding party shall reserve an IDC through [the Court Reservation System (“CRS”)] and provide notice of the reserved IDC to the opposing/responding party by filing and serving an Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts (LASC CIV 239) at least 15 court days before the IDC and attach the CRS reservation receipt as the last page. The IDC will not be “scheduled” by the court until the IDC Form is filed. The opposing/responding party may file and serve a responsive IDC Form at least 10 court days before the IDC. All parties shall briefly set forth their respective positions on the pending discovery issues on the IDC Form.

service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) “[T]he clock on a motion to compel begins to run once ‘verified responses’ or ‘supplemental verified responses’ are served.” (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 135, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).)¿ When responses to interrogatories are a combination of unverified responses and objections, the clock begins to run only when the verifications are served. (Id. at p. 136.) “Notices must be in writing, and the notice of a motion, other than for a new trial, must state when, and the grounds upon which it will be made, and¿the papers, if any, upon which it is to be based. If any such paper has not previously been served upon the party to be notified and was not filed by him, a copy of such paper must accompany the notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005.) Thus, the notice must include the interrogatories at issue and supporting law. The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b).)

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s further response to special interrogatories, nos. 32, 34, and 35. Because special interrogatories, nos. 32 and 34 refer to special interrogatories, nos. 31, and 33, respectively, the Court sets out special interrogatories, nos. 31 to 35.

Between May 6, 2009 and May 6, 2019 did you ever complain about any pain or discomfort of any kind to any part of your neck to any HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER?

If your answer to special interrogatory No. 31 is in the affirmative, identify by name and current street address of the HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONERS you complained to about neck pain.

In response to Special Interrogatory No. 31., Plaintiff initially responded by asserting eight objections including the phrase “complaint about pain” was vague and ambiguous. Plaintiff also provided the response “occasional tension in the neck may have been discussed with a health care practitioner.” In Plaintiff’s last supplemental response, Plaintiff indicates not having “personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to this interrogatory, despite having made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations.

In response to Special Interrogatory No. 32, Plaintiff initially responded that discovery was ongoing. In Plaintiff’s last supplemental response, Plaintiff lodged the same eight objections as to Special Interrogatory No. 31 and responded that he lacked personal knowledge sufficient to respond.

Between May 6, 2009 and May 6, 2019 did you ever complain about any pain or discomfort of any kind to any part of your back to any HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER?

If your answer to special interrogatory No. 33 is in the affirmative, identify by name and current street address, the HEAL TH CARE PRACTITIONERS you complained to about back pain.

In response to Special Interrogatory No. 33, Plaintiff initially asserted eight objections including that the phrase “complaint about pain” was vague and ambiguous. Plaintiff also provided the response “occasional tension in the back may have been discussed with a health care practitioner.”

In response to Special Interrogatory No. 34, Plaintiff initially responded “Not applicable. Discovery was ongoing….” In Plaintiff’s last supplemental response, Plaintiff lodged the same eight objections as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 31 and 33 and responded that he lacked personal knowledge sufficient to respond.

Special Interrogatory, No. 35 asks the following: Identify by date all concerts and venues you have gone to in Las Vegas since May 7, 2019.

Plaintiff objected to the interrogatory in his initial response based on relevancy and privacy grounds, among others. In Plaintiff’s last supplemental response, Plaintiff asserted the same objections and responded that he lacked personal knowledge sufficient to respond. Plaintiff also stated “At Plaintiff's deposition on March 11, 2022, when asked whether Plaintiff remembered

what concerts he saw in Las Vegas after May 7, 2019, Plaintiff responded (page 61, line 21), as seeing ‘Jennifer Lopez and Barry Manilow. I don't remember the dates though.’”

Plaintiff takes the position he provided code-compliant responses and is not required to describe the reasonable and good faith efforts he made to obtain the information.

Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782, holds otherwise: “If a person cannot furnish details [in responding to an interrogatory], he should set forth the efforts made to secure the information.” Here, Plaintiff provided the following response to each at-issue interrogatory: “Plaintiff does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to this interrogatory, despite having made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations.” (See Separate Statement.) Plaintiff does not detail his reasonable and good faith efforts to obtain the information.

Plaintiff contends Deyo is inapplicable because it was decided before the 2005 amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court is not persuaded. Deyo concerned Section 2030 which, after the 2005 amendments was partly codified as Section 2030.220. Plaintiff fails to point out that that the language in Section 2030, subdivision (f)(1)-(3) is identical to the current Section 2030.220. Deyo remains good law.[1]

Defendant further argues that Plaintiff’s responses are incomplete and evasive. A review of Plaintiff’s responses confirms this conclusion. In response to Special Interrogatories, Nos. 32 and 34, Plaintiff stated: occasional tension in the neck may have been discussed with a health care practitioner; occasional tension in the back may have been discussed with a health care practitioner. These responses are not “as complete and straightforward” as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220.

Plaintiff’s answer to Special Interrogatory, No. 35 is similarly incomplete. That Plaintiff could remember attending Jennifer Lopez and Barry Manilow concerts but not the date of attendance, or even an approximate date, confirms that a reasonable, good faith effort was not made to uncover that information, especially in light of the fact no description of the failed efforts were included.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to serve supplemental responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three, Nos. 32, 34, and 35. Plaintiff shall have 20 calendar days to provide code complaint responses (April 9, 2023.)

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Hon. Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] To underscore the point: “Another consequence of the duty to attempt to obtain information is that “I don’t know” or “unknown” are insufficient answers to matters presumably known to the responding party. (Example: Question asks, “What is the name and address of the each physician who treated you for the injuries described in your complaint?”) The responding party must make a reasonable effort to obtain whatever information is sought; and if unable to do so, must specify why the information is unavailable and what efforts he or she made to obtain it. (See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA3d 771, 782.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before trial (The Rutter Group 2022) §8:1061.)(emphasis in original.)