Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV01754, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01754    Hearing Date: February 6, 2024    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL

Honeywell’s Motion to Compel

            Honeywell served requests for admissions and form interrogatory No. 17.1.  Plaintiffs objected, and Honeywell filed a motion to compel further responses to some of the RFAs and the form interrogatory.  Most of the RFAs address issues already covered by the standard interrogatories.  That means that the form interrogatory No. 17.1 applied to those RFAs results in discovery requests that duplicate the standard interrogatories.  Honeywell failed to address this problem.  The court rules as follows:

RFA Nos. 34-40:  Granted.  Plaintiffs are to serve verified responses within 30 days.

Form Interrogatory No. 17.1:  Granted in part and denied in part.  The RFAs asked Plaintiffs to admit they have no evidence supporting their causes of action and request for punitive damages.  The standard interrogatories require Plaintiffs to state the facts, and identify witnesses and documents, supporting the contention that Defendant’s products exposed Plaintiff to asbestos, concerning friction products (such as Defendant’s brakes), warnings about asbestos, defects in the products at issue, misrepresentations about asbestos containing friction products, the harm and damages to Plaintiffs caused by the asbestos exposure.  (See, e.g., Standard Interrogatory Nos. 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 50, 55-62.)  The only non-duplicative portion of form interrogatory No. 17.1 concerns RFA No. 40 about the request for punitive damages.  Therefore, the motion is denied as to form interrogatory No. 17.1 concerning all RFAs except as to RFA No. 40, and is granted as to form interrogatory No. 17.1 concerning RFA No. 40.  Plaintiffs are to serve verified responses within 30 days.

The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.  The moving party is to give notice.

American Honda Motor Co.’s Motions to Compel

            American Honda Motor Co. served requests for admission Nos. 1-3 and 6-26 on both Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs objected, and Defendant filed two motions to compel further responses to those RFAs. 

            Plaintiffs objected that the RFAs are improper because Defendant also served form interrogatory No. 17.1.  But Defendant did not file a motion to compel further responses to form interrogatory No. 17.1.  The RFAs standing alone are proper, and the motion is granted.

            The two motions to compel are GRANTED.  Plaintiffs are to serve verified responses to the RFAs within 30 days.

            The moving party is to give notice.