Judge Laura A. Seigle, Case Number: 21STCV27757, Date: 2023-06-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 21STCV27757, Date: 2023-06-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27757 Hearing Date: June 23, 2023 Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

On March 10, 2023, Defendant Honeywell International Inc. served one supplemental interrogatory directed to all five Plaintiffs – Mary Sotomayor, Steve Sotomayor, Jeffrey Sotomayor, Philip Sotomayor, and James Sotomayor. On April 11, 2023, Plaintiffs served a joint response stating they did not have any supplemental information to their responses to special interrogatories. Mary Sotomayor signed a verification on April 17, 2023. Steve Sotomayor signed a verification on April 19, 2023. Philip Sotomayor signed a verification on April 23, 2023. James signed a verification on April 16, 2023. Plaintiffs served those four verifications on April 20, 25, 28, and May 10, 2023. Plaintiffs did not serve a verification from Jeffrey Sotomayor.

The parties participated in an IDC on May 17, 2023, and the court set a May 31, 2023 deadline to file motions to compel. On May 31, 2023, Honeywell filed a motion to compel further supplemental interrogatories from the five plaintiffs. It should have filed five motions, one for each plaintiff.

Defendant argues the supplemental responses stating Plaintiffs have no supplemental information to their responses to special interrogatories is inadequate because it does not address their responses to the standard interrogatories. (Motion at pp. 3-4.) Also, Jeffrey Sotomayor never served a verification. (Id. at p. 4.)

Plaintiffs argue the motion filed on May 31, 2023 does not give them sufficient time because it was served electronically and therefore two additional days need to be added to the notice period. (Opposition at p. 5.) If Plaintiffs need to additional days to file another opposition, the court will continue the hearing. Plaintiffs argue Defendant did not adequately meet and confer. The meet and confer was adequate.

Plaintiffs state they served amended standard interrogatory responses on May 30, 2023, which cured any deficiencies. (Opposition at p. 6.) However, the amended standard interrogatory response attached as Exhibit D to Plaintiffs’ Index of Exhibits is deficient because it does not contain any verifications. In addition, the five plaintiffs did not separately respond. Instead, they served one response on behalf of all five of them.

Plaintiffs argue Defendant cannot use a supplemental interrogatory if it was unsatisfied with Plaintiffs’ original responses to the standard interrogatories, and instead Defendant should have timely moved to compel further responses to the standard interrogatories. However, Plaintiffs cannot use that as an excuse not to supplement their standard interrogatory responses with “any later acquired information bearing on all answers previously made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.070, subd (a).)

In sum, the five Plaintiffs each failed to serve verified supplemental standard interrogatory responses containing any later acquired information bearing on their previous answers. If they have no later acquired information, they need to serve verified supplemental responses to the standard interrogatories so stating. Each Plaintiff needs to serve a separate verified supplemental response. Also, in the future, Defendants are to serve each Plaintiff with discovery requests directed to that specific Plaintiff. Defendants are not to serve one discovery request on all five Plaintiffs, as Defendant did with the supplemental interrogatory at issue here. And each Plaintiff is to respond separately.

However, Plaintiffs are correct that Defendant cannot use this motion and the supplemental interrogatory as a substitute for a motion to compel further responses to the original standard interrogatories. That is what Defendant’s Separate Statement seeks to do with its arguments that the original standard interrogatory responses were deficient.

The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. By July 10, 2023, each Plaintiff is to serve verified supplemental responses to the standard interrogatories containing any later acquired information bearing on that Plaintiff’s previous answers.

The requests for sanctions are DENIED. Defendant was correct that each Plaintiff failed to serve verified supplemental standard interrogatory responses. And Plaintiffs were correct that Defendant is trying to use this motion to compel further responses to the original standard interrogatory responses. In other words, both sides are failing to conduct discovery properly and are taking shortcuts. This results in needless letter-writing and a waste of attorney and court resources.

The moving party is to give notice.