Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV30547, Date: 2023-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30547    Hearing Date: November 13, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY:            Plaintiff Robert Williamson

RESPONDING PARTY:    None

I.         BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action. On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff Robert Williamson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants GLS US Freight, Inc. (“GLS”), Francisco Escalante (“Escalante”), and Does 1 through 20, alleging causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence.

On September 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, and 17.1, Set One against Defendant Escalante. The motion is unopposed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

The following rules apply to responses to interrogatories.

“(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.

(c) 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 natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.)

In addition, “[i]f an objection is made to an interrogatory or to a part of an interrogatory, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.240, subd. (b).)

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: ¶ (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. ¶ (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. ¶ (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) 

Similarly, “[o]n receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: ¶ (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. ¶ (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. ¶ (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) 

Motions to compel further responses to interrogatories must be brought within 45 days of service of a verified response, supplemental verified response, or on a date to which the propounding and responding parties have agreed to in writing; otherwise, the propounding party waives the right to compel further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

“If a party then fails to obey an order compelling further response to interrogatories, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (e).)

III.      DISCUSSION

The FROGs at issue asked Defendant Escalante the following.

·         FROG No. 2.6: This interrogatory seeks the identification of Responding Party’s current employer and identifying information for each employer from five years before the incident to present.

·         FROG No. 2.7: This interrogatory seeks Defendant’s educational history and degrees received.

·         FROG No. 2.8: This interrogatory asks whether Defendant has ever been convicted of a felony and seeks all identifying information related to a felony conviction.

·         FROG No. 17.1: This interrogatory asks for identification of each response to Requests for Admissions that is not an unqualified admission, facts on which the Responding Party bases his response, and the contact information of all persons who have knowledge of the same facts.

Plaintiff contends he propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Escalante on October 27, 2022. (Declaration of Kasey Diba, ¶ 3.) After meeting and conferring regarding Escalante’s initial responses, Escalante provided a set of supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories on April 13, 2023. (Diba Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. C.) Plaintiff sent Escalante a meet and confer letter regarding deficiencies in Escalante’s supplemental responses but Escalante has not responded. (Diba Decl., ¶¶ 10-12, Exs. F-H.)

Plaintiff contends he has not received any verified responses to date to Form Interrogatories Nos. 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, and 17.1 despite Escalante’s affirmation that he would provide supplemental responses by May 12, 2023. Plaintiff also contends that Escalante’s objection that the interrogatories are “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” is improper since they have been approved as to form pursuant to CCP section 2033.710; and Escalante fails to identify how identifying information related to Escalante is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Plaintiff further contends Escalante’s response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 is improper and incomplete as Escalante only identifies RFA No. 6 while Nos. 4, 5, 7, and 8 are not unqualified admissions.

First, the Court construes Escalante’s lack of opposition to Plaintiff’s motion as a concession that Plaintiff’s arguments are meritorious. (Holden v. City of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 404, 418; C. Opposing the Motion—and Rebutting the Opposition, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 9(I)-C, ¶ 9:105.10.)

Second, the Form Interrogatories Plaintiff served are on a standard form in which Interrogatories have been approved by the Judicial Council under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.710, and the requested information is directly relevant to the case at hand.

Third, Form Interrogatories Nos 17.1 is unambiguous, requiring a discussion of each response to RFAs that is “not an unqualified admission.”

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, and 17.1, Set One.

As for monetary sanctions, the Court will grant the request in the reduced amount of $ 2,206.41, comprised of 4.0 hours preparing the motion and 0.5 hours for appearing at the hearing on the motion, multiplied by the hourly rate of $475.00, plus $61.65 for the reservation fee and $7.26 for the filing fee.

IV.      CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, and 17.1, Set One. Defendant Escalante must provide further code-compliant verified responses within 20 days of the Court’s order.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $2,206.41. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel must pay said monetary sanctions within 20 days of the Court’s order.

Moving party to give notice. 

            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’s 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.

      Dated this 9th day of November 2023