Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 20STCV18721, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling

On May 15, 2020, Plaintiff Arman Dayan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Stanley Schuster (“Defendant”) arising from a May 7, 2019 pedestrian and motor vehicle collision.

On October 17, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission on November 22, 2022. An IDC was held on January 29, 2024 and the issues were not resolved. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed oppositions, and Defendant replied. This ruling addresses all three motions.

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (a), Section 2031.310, and 2033.290 subdivision (a), parties may move for a further response to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or requests for admission where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general.

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c), 2033.290, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b), 2031.310, subd. (b), 2033.290, subd. (b).)

Finally, Cal. 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)).

The Court finds that the motions are timely made as the parties waived the motion cut-off date. The Court also finds that Defendant have satisfied their obligation to meet and confer.

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s further response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. Plaintiff objects on the basis that an expert opinion is required. However, the answers to the questions do not appear to require an expert opinion. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 55, 58, 61, 148, 149, 189, 190, 193, and 196.

Nos. 55, 58, and 61, ask Plaintiff what he said to Dr. Moussazadadeh. Defendant takes issue with the statement “Plaintiff recalls indicating that as a result of the incident, he found himself sitting on the ground.” Specifically, Defendant is concerned about the word “indicating”. (See Reply.) Defendant argues that this statement is ambiguous because Defendant cannot determine if Plaintiff demonstrated some type of body movement, such as falling down or stumbling backwards when he spoke to Dr. Moussazadeh about the incident. In Defendant’s reply, he suggested deleting the offending word, "indicating," or an amended response to clear up the ambiguity. (See Reply.) The Court does not see how deleting the word “indicating” would clear any ambiguity Defendant has, and further such response would not be an answer to the question. The question asks what Plaintiff said to Dr. Moussazadeh, and he replies what he “indicated” to him; in the context of the question, “indicating” is not ambiguous; it is in this instance synonymous with stating. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 55, 58, and 61.

As to Nos. 148, 149, 189, 190, 193, and 196, Plaintiff objects that it requires an expert opinion. However, upon review of the requests, the objection is only valid as to No. 196. The others only ask for facts such as the total amount of medical bills, names, dates, addresses, and whether Plaintiff has a life care plan that can be answered with a yes or no. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 148, 149, 189, 190, and 193, and DENIED as to No. 196.

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Request for Admission No. 10. The request asks Plaintiff to admit that he has not been informed by any medical provider that he needs future surgery for the subject injuries. Plaintiff objects on the basis that it seeks disclosure of expert opinion and is protected by the work product doctrine and attorney client privilege until it becomes clear that a specific expert will testify. However, the request does ask for a particular expert opinion, which may implicate the work product doctrine. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 13 and 14 which request documents “referenced in Plaintiff’s Mediation Brief.” Plaintiff objected on the basis that it is in violation of the mediation privilege. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that given that qualifying phrase, Defendant seeks material protected by the mediation privilege. In reply, Defendant concedes to amending the request to delete any reference to the mediation brief. As this omits the “qualifying phrase,” the motion is MOOT.

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to Interrogatories is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, and Special Interrogatory Nos. 148, 149, 189, 190, and 193; and DENIED as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 55, 58, 61, and 196.

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for Admission is GRANTED.

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production is MOOT.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide further responses to the requests for which the motions were granted within 20 days of the issuance of this order.

Additionally, Defendant is ORDERED to pay an extra filing fee to the court as the motion to compel further responses to interrogatories is actually two motions filed as one.

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. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court