Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV20267, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20267    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL

            On December 26, 2023, Plaintiffs Nauricio Jesus Gonzalez Perez, Jaqueline Stefania Gonzalez Perez, and Daniela Ossiris Gonzalez Perez filed a motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, requests for admission, and form interrogatories from Defendant Jafra Cosmetics International, Inc..  The court rules as follows:

Special Interrogatories

            No. 1:  Granted.  This interrogatory asks who manufactured Defendant’s talc products from 1970 to 2000.  Defendant responded with a preliminary statement, which is not permissible.  The preliminary statement is stricken.  It also responded that it does not know the identity of all of the manufacturers and named only two.  The response does not state that Defendant made “a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations” as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, subdivision (c).  Defendant is to provide an amended response without the preliminary statement and confirming it made the efforts required under the CCP to obtain the information.

Requests for Admissions

            Nos. 12, 16:  Denied.  These request for admission asked Defendant to admit that its Adorisse Dusting Powder was designed to contain talc in 1970 through 2000, and there was no recall of that product.  Defendant responded with an improper preliminary statement, which is stricken.  Defendant stated it made a reasonable inquiry and does not have information to admit or deny the requests.  This response is proper.  If Plaintiffs do not believe that Defendant conducted a reasonable inquiry, they can take the deposition of the person verifying the response.

Form Interrogatory No. 17.1

            Responses re RFA Nos. 3, 4, 10:  Granted.  These RFAs asked Defendant to admit it was never informed the talc it used was free of asbestos, it does not know if the talc it used contained asbestos, and it never tested Adorisse Dusting Powder for asbestos.  Defendant responded with an improper preliminary statement, which is stricken.  Defendant also responded that it used manufacturers to make the products it sold, and it required the ingredients be tested in accordance with regulatory standards including any talc for asbestos.  It did not identify any specific people with knowledge of those facts, and it did not identify any specific documents, only generic documents.  This answer is deficient.  It does not identify specific witnesses or specific documents.  Further, the response does not state that Defendant made “a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations.”

            Response re RFA No. 12:  Granted.  This RFA asked Defendant to admit Adorisse was designed to contain talc.  Defendant responded with an improper preliminary statement, which is stricken.  Defendant also responded that it used manufacturers to make the products it sold, the manufacturers chose the ingredients, and it thinks talc was an ingredient.  It did not identify any specific people with knowledge of those facts.  Regarding documents, it stated “not applicable.”  This answer is deficient.  It does not identify specific witnesses.  If there are no documents, Defendant needs to say so.  “Not applicable” is an improper response.  Further, the response does not state that Defendant made “a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations.”

            Response re RFA No. 16:  Granted.  This RFA asked Defendant to admit Defendant never recalled Adorisse.  Defendant responded with an improper preliminary statement, which is stricken.  Defendant also responded that is not aware of any recall.  It did not identify any specific people with knowledge of those facts.  Regarding documents, it stated “not applicable.”  This answer is deficient.  It does not identify specific witnesses.  If there are no documents, Defendant needs to say so.  “Not applicable” is an improper response.  Further, the response does not state that Defendant made “a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations.”

            The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part Defendant is to serve supplemental responses, as identified above, within thirty days of the date of this order.

            The moving party is to give notice.