On December 10, 2020, Plaintiff Woztbeli Antonio Garcia filed this action against Team Love Transport Corporation (“TLTC”) and Lesky Figueroa Aguiar (collectively, “Defendants”) for motor vehicle negligence arising out of a collision on December 12, 2018. 

On September 9, 2022, the parties engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC).  The Court ordered TLTC to serve verified further responses and produce responsive documents to Plaintiff’s discovery request by October 7, 2022.   

On October 19, 2022, the Court found cases 20STCV45774, 20STCV47372, and 20STCV47619 were related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300, subdivision (a).  20STCV45774 is the lead case.  Accordingly, all hearings in cases other than the lead case remained scheduled for the same dates in Department 27 at Spring Street Courthouse, including the trial scheduled for April 17, 2023 in 20STCV47619 and 20STCV47372. 

On November 7, 2022, the parties engaged in another IDC wherein counsel for Defendants represented to the Court that client communication was delayed due to inclement weather but that the requested documents would be delivered no later than November 14, 2022.  By oral agreement of the parties, the Court set December 14, 2022 as the deadline for filing motions to compel further.  

On December 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed eight motions to compel further responses from Defendants.  The motions are scheduled to be heard on March 2, April 6, April 10, April 14, and April 17. 

The first of Plaintiff’s motions to be heard seek an order compelling Defendants to each deliver verified further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.  No oppositions have been filed. 

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (a), and Section 2031.310, parties may move for a further response to interrogatories or requests for production of documents where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general.   

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, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)  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).)    

Finally, Cal. 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, subd. (a)(3).)   

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to each deliver verified further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (“Interrogatories”), numbers 15.1, 16.1, 16.2, 16.4-16.10, and 17.1 because Defendants provide incomplete or evasive responses as well as meritless objections.   

A motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories may be brought if 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 Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)  A party may discover any non-privileged matter that is “relevant to the subject matter” of the action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)   

Here, the Court finds Defendants submitted meritless and overly generalized objections or incomplete responses.  Further, Plaintiff seeks information concerning Defendants’ asserted affirmative defenses which are relevant to Plaintiff’s ability to prepare for trial.  (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) 

Given that the Court ordered Defendants to provide verified further responses to Plaintiff’s counsel, and, to date, Defendants have failed to provide any responses despite representing that such responses would be forthcoming, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendants’ verified further responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories. 

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Defendants and Defendants’ counsel of record, Wolfe & Wyman, LLP, in the amount of $13,723.30 for preparing and filing each motion.  A court may impose monetary sanctions against a party where the party fails to serve verified responses to an interrogatory request.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)  

The Court finds that the imposition of monetary sanctions is warranted.  Defendants have failed to timely provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories despite having been granted multiple extensions and representing to the Court that further verified responses would be served to Plaintiff’s counsel.  Accordingly, the Court imposes monetary sanctions against Defendants and Defendants’ counsel.  Because Defendants have not filed oppositions to the instant motions, the Court imposes monetary sanctions in the reduced total amount of $1,323.30, which represents 4 hours of plaintiff’s counsel’s time in preparing the instant motions and attending the hearing at plaintiff’s counsel’s rate of $300 and $123.30 in filing fees.