Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case 21STCV37452 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

On October 8, 2021, plaintiff Esmaralda Y. Fuentes-Perez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Run D. Wu and Dan Yuedong Wu arising from an apartment fire that occurred around November 2020.

On March 15, 2023, Defendant Run D. Wu (hereinafter, “Defendant”) filed these motions to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One. In the notice of motion, Defendant requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff only.

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).)

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, subd. (a)(3).)

a general statute authorizing the Court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes (without limitation) a variety of conduct such as: making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction.

With regard to a motion to compel further responses to requests for production, Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.310, subdivision (h) provides that sanctions shall be awarded against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses, unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

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).)

A. Procedural Matters: Defendant’s motion is timely, and Defendant complied with its IDC obligations.

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), nos. 2.5, 2.7, 6.2, 6.7 and 12.1.

FROG No. 2.5 requests that Plaintiff state: “(a) your present residential ADDRESS; (b) your residence ADDRESSES for the past five years; and (c) the dates you lived at each ADDRESS.” Plaintiff responded to 2.5(a) and 2.5(b) but did not respond to 2.5(c). Defendant argues he is entitled to discover information regarding where Plaintiff lived given that this case stems from a fire at Plaintiff’s home. The Court agrees.

FROG No. 2.7 requests that Plaintiff state: “(a) the name and address of each school or other academic or vocational institute you have attended, beginning with high school; (b) the dates you attended; (c) the highest grade level you have completed; and (d) the degrees received.”

In response, Plaintiff stated “(a) I attended Michelle Insurance. (b) I attended form March to May, 2017. (c) I finished the course. (d) I received an agent certified.”

Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to identify any academic or vocational institutes she attended aside from “Michelle Insurance”. As this is a Form Interrogatory, Defendant argues he is entitled to discover this information.

FROG No. 6.2 states “Identify each injury you attribute to the INCIDENT and the area of your body affected.”

In response, Plaintiff stated, “All my member family living in the subject property suffered emotional stress, all of us lost personal property with priceless value.”

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s response does not fully and substantively address the interrogatory. The Court agrees.

FROG No. 6.7 asks “Has any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER advised that you may require future or additional treatment for any injuries that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each injury state: (a) the name and ADDRESS of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER; (b) the complaints for which the treatment was advised; and (c) the nature, duration, and estimated cost of the treatment.”

In response, Plaintiff stated “No treatment only therapy [¶] WE NEED TO PUT THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PROVIDER [¶] WE NEED TO TELL OF WHAT SHE COMPLAINED OF [¶] WE HAVE TO TELL LONG SHE RECEIVED TREATMENT, AND ESTIMATED COST OF TREATMENT”.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s response does not fully and substantively address the interrogatory. The Court agrees (and agrees with the parenthetical mistakenly included in the response).

FROG No. 12.1 requests that Plaintiff “State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual: (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; (b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; (c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDNET [sic[ by any induvial [sic[ at the scene; and (d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034).

In response, Plaintiff answered “(a) Roger M. Miller (neighbor) (626) 406-6457, Maria Lopez (neighbor) (626) 626-6358 (b) Los Angeles Sheriff Department. (c) Neighbors (d) None.”

Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not fully respond to the interrogatory. Specifically, Plaintiff did not provide addresses for the witnesses identified in 12.1(a) and 12.1(c). The Court agrees.

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Special Interrogatories (“SROG”), nos. 1-14, 16, 18-20.

SROG No. 1 asks Plaintiff to “State all facts which support your contention, as alleged in Paragraph 10 of your Complaint, that “Defendant Run’s apartment caught on fire through Defendant Run’s actions, omissions…”

SROG No. 2 asks Plaintiff to “Identify by name, telephone number, address and email address each individual who has knowledge of facts which support your contention, as alleged in Paragraph 10 of your Complaint, that “Defendant Run’s apartment caught on fire through Defendant Run’s actions, omissions…”

SROG No. 3 asks Plaintiff to “State all facts which support your contention, as alleged in Paragraph 10 of your Complaint, that “Defendant Run’s apartment caught on fire through ... conduct within Defendant Run’s agency, scope and control.”

In response to SROG Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Plaintiff stated “Plaintiff is alleging that someone other than herself, probably Yuedong Wu was negligent in creating a dangerous condition where a fire started and traveled to Plaintiff’s apartment causing damage.”

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s responses do not contain any facts or responsive information. The Court agrees. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to nos. 1, 2, and 3.

SROG Nos. 4-8, 16, and 18 each pertain to paragraph 12 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

SROG Nos. 9-14 ask Plaintiff to state the amounts she was reimbursed by her insurance carrier, including “incidental” and “out of pocket expenses”; to itemize the property for which she was reimbursed, including “incidental” and “out of pocket expenses”; and to identify individuals who had knowledge of the reimbursements.

SROG Nos. 19 and 20 ask Plaintiff to state the substance of her conversations with Defendant Run D Wu and Defendant Dan Yuedong Wu, respectively.

In response, Plaintiff appears to provide instructions meant for her former counsel, none of which are fully or substantively responsive to each special interrogatory. Each special interrogatory is relevant to the identity of witnesses, information related thereto and damages. The Court agrees. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to SROG Nos. 4-14, 16, and 18-20.

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff Esmaralda Y. Fuentes-Perez is to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 2.5, 2.7, 6.2, 6.7 and 12.1 and Special Interrogatories Nos. 1-14, 16, 18-20. Plaintiff is ordered to comply within twenty (20) days of this Order.

Plaintiff Esmaralda Y. Fuentes-Perez is ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant Run D. Wu, by and through Defendant’s counsel, in the amount of $860 within twenty (20) days of this Order.

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