Judge Laura A. Seigle, Case Number: 23STCV06876, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV06876, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06876 Hearing Date: October 3, 2023 Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Defendant Walmart Inc. filed a motion to compel further responses by Plaintiffs Elizabeth Bowman and Gary Bowman to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. As an initial matter, the parties are under the impression that the court issued orders at the informal discovery conference. That is not correct. The purpose of IDCs is to attempt to resolve discovery disputes informally. The outcome of the IDC here was that Plaintiffs agreed to serve amended responses. (See Aug. 16, 2023 minute order.)

Defendant argues Plaintiffs’ responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 are deficient because they contain boilerplate objections, and Plaintiffs provide the same response as to each request for admission that was not an unqualified admission. Defendant also complains that Plaintiffs did not identify documents supporting the responses.

Plaintiffs argue the responses provide the necessary detail, and Plaintiffs produced the documents.

Interrogatory “[a]nswers must be complete and responsive. Thus it is not proper to answer by stating, ‘See my deposition,’ ‘See my pleading,’ or ‘See the financial statement.’” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 784-785.)

If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparate of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of documents, and the burden or expense of preparing it would be substantially the same for both parties, the responding party may answer the interrogatory by referring to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 and specifing the writings from which the answer may be derived. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) The specification must be detailed enough to permit the propounding party to locate and identify the documents as readily as the responding party can. (Ibid.)

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 persons, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, (subd. (c).)

A responding party cannot refuse to respond to an interrogatory “merely on the claim that the requested information had been given in previous deposition and trials.” (Bunnell v. Superior Court (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 720, 723.)

If the responding party objects to an interrogatory, the objection must be made “separately to each interrogatory.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210, subd. (a).) An objection can only be made “to the particular interrogatory,” meaning general objections are not allowed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210, subd. (a)(3).) Objections that are too general may be subject to a motion to compel further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(3).)

Plaintiffs’ Amended Responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 are defective as follows:

First, the two pages of general objections are not proper. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.210, subd. (a)(3); 2030.300, subd. (a)(3).)

Second, the objections are too general. For example, Plaintiffs object that Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 is duplicative, but they do not identify what other interrogatories it duplicates. Plaintiffs object that No. 17.1 calls for attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product, but they do not specify the documents or categories of information that are privileged. Plaintiffs object that the interrogatory calls for expert information but they do not specify such information. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(3).)

Third, Plaintiffs respond by referring to “each of the responses to interrogatories propounded on Plaintiff by Walmart Inc., served concurrently herewith, as well as Plaintiff’s responses to General Order Interrogatories; which have been previously served on all Defendants and of which responses are incorporated herein by reference.” (Amended Responses at p. 5.) This is not a specific response, and it does not describe the documents with enough detail to permit the propounding party to locate and identify the documents as readily as the responding party can. (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at pp. 784-785; Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.)

Fourth, Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 requires, “for each response that is not an unqualified admission,” answers to questions (a)-(d). Plaintiffs did not respond separately for each response that was not an unqualified admission. Instead, they responded with one answer to twenty RFA responses. (Amended Response at p. 5.) The RFAs covered different topics. For example, RFA No. 11 asked Plaintiffs to admit they cannot identify the purchase date for any talcum powder products they purchased from Walmart. RFA No. 15 asked Plaintiffs to admit no health care provider had told Plaintiff her mesothelioma was contributed to by talcum powder products from Walmart. RFA No. 16 asked about Defendant’s duty to test and inspect talcum powder products it sells. These are different topics requiring different facts supporting the denials.

Rather than responding with the specific facts upon which they base their response to each RFA, Plaintiffs gave one response that contained information irrelevant to some of the RFAs. For example, Plaintiffs state she bought various products from Walmart stores in Texas, Oregon, and California in the 1980s through 2021 and was exposed to asbestos from those products. That response does not give information about Plaintiffs’ response to the RFA No. 15 asking about health care providers. Nor does it provide facts about Defendant’s duty to test and inspect products it sells. Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 questions (a)-(d) must be answered separately for each RFA response that is not an unqualified admission.

Fifth, in the response “Plaintiff refers to her deposition testimony taken in this matter beginning on July 11, 2023.” (Amended Responses at p. 5; see also id. at p. 11.) Similarly, Plaintiffs refer to all of their “responses to written discovery propounded by Defendants.” (Amended Response at p. 6.) That is improper. (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at pp. 784-785.)

Sixth, Plaintiffs refer to “the documents that have already been produced and/or made available to Defendants since the inception of litigation herein,” as well as every document produced by every defendant in any talc litigation. (Amended Responses at pp. 5-6, 7.) This is not a specific identification as required by Code of Civil Procedures section 2030.230. The amended response does not specifically identify any document but instead refers to general broad categories. Indeed by referring to “all documents produced by other Defendants in talc litigation” and all prior testimony of all Defendants throughout the country, Plaintiffs has responded with the most generic, broadest, and least specific identification of documents possible. This response in no way complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230.

The motion to compel further responses is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are to serve further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 within 20 days of the date of this order.

Defendant requested $3,198 in sanctions. As posted on the Department 15 webpage, this court requires counsel to meet and confer in person or by telephone to attempt to resolve a discovery dispute and then to schedule an informal discovery conference if the dispute remains unresolved. Defendant filed its initial motion without scheduling an informal discovery conference. Counsel have never had an actual conversation about this discovery dispute except during the IDC with the court’s involvement. The court concludes that both sides are failing to engage in good faith attempts to resolve discovery disputes and therefore denies the request for sanctions.

The moving party is to give notice.