Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22ATCV27494, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22ATCV27494    Hearing Date: December 7, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Lee S. Arian, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     December 7, 2023                              TRIAL DATE:  February 21, 2024

CASE:                         Reuben Creech, et al. v. Claribel Reyes, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV27494

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF FRANKESKA WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Juan Guerrero, Jr.

RESPONDING PARTY:     Plaintiff Frankeska Wilson

I.          BACKGROUND

            On August 24, 2022, Reuben Creech (“Creech”) and Frankeska Wilson (“Wilson”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Claribel Reyes (“Reyes”), Juan Guerrero Jr. (“Guerrero”), and Does 1 to 10 (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision.

On February 1, 2023, Defendant Guerrero served Plaintiff Wilson with Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories and responses were due on March 6, 2023.

On April 20, 2023, Plaintiff Wilson submitted her discovery responses.

On May 1, 2023, Defendant Guerrero’s counsel sent Plaintiff Wilson’s counsel a Meet and Confer Letter requesting verified responses by May 8, 2023; however, no responses were provided.

On September 8, 2023, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) with the Court regarding the motion to compel but the discovery issues were not resolved.

            On November 13, 2023, Defendant Guerrero filed this motion to compel further responses.

Plaintiff did not file an opposition. 

II.        LEGAL STANDARD FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES  

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

California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.230(a) requires each answer in response to interrogatories to “be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to responding party permits.” ¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a).)

            Notice of the motion 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); 2033.290, subd. (c).)¿ The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, 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).)  

III.      DISCUSSION

            Moving Party: Defendant argues that Plaintiff Wilson’s untimely responses to Form Interrogatories numbers: 2.6; 2.7; 4.1(d); 10.1; 10.2; 10.3; 11.1; 11.2; 17.1. and to Special Interrogatory numbers 7, 8, and 9 were incomplete and evasive.

            Responding Party: Plaintiff did not provide an opposition.

A.    Timeliness

Notice of the motion 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., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) 

Here, Plaintiff not only untimely provided responses on April 20, 2023, because they were due on March 6, 2023, but also failed to verify the responses. (Victoire Marqué’s Declaration, ¶¶2,3.) Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel on May 1, 2023, requesting verified responses to said discovery by May 1, 2023. (Id. at ¶5.) After not receiving verified responses, Defendant Guerrero filed his motion to compel further responses on November 13, 2023. (Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel, p.1; Victoire Marqué’s Declaration, ¶7.) Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant Guerrero timely made his motion to compel because Plaintiff never filed verified responses, and, therefore, the 45-daytime limit does not apply.  

B.     Meet and Confer 

A motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b); 2033.290, subd. (b).)¿ 

Defendant Guerrero submits declarations detailing his counsel’s meet and confer efforts; at the Informal Discovery Conference, the Court recommended that Defendant Guerrero proceed with filing his Motion to Compel. (Victoire Marqué’s Declaration, ¶8.) Thus, the Court finds that Defendant Guerrero has satisfied the meet and confer requirement.

C.     Analysis

Defendant seeks an order compelling Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One. Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300 and 2033.290, parties may move for a further response to interrogatories or requests for admission where an answer to the is incomplete or evasive.

Plaintiff responded to Nos. 2.6 ,2.7, 4.1(d), 10.1, 10.3, 11.1 and 11.2 as follows: “discovery and investigation continuing. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement and/or amend this response” which requested her education, employment, injuries, insurance, and workers’ compensation information. (Plaintiff Frankeska Wilson’s Responses p.5-6, 9, 15-17.) Further, Plaintiff responded “[n]ot applicable” to No. 10.2, which requested her physical, mental, and emotional disabilities immediately before the incident. (Id. at 15.) Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, requested a specific response to each Request for Admissions she denied, however, Plaintiff provided general responses to these requests. (Id. at 23.)

Plaintiff also responded to Special Interrogatory Nos. 7, 8, and 9 which requested pharmacy information, Medicare benefits, and Medicare Health Insurance Claim number with “discovery and investigation continuing. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement and/or amend this response.” (Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories p.5.) Therefore, Plaintiff Wilson’s responses were not only untimely and unverified but also evasive and incomplete because they were standard questions for a personal injury case, all of which could have been addressed at the time requested.

Accordingly, the unopposed motion is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One.

IV.       CONCLUSION

The motion to compel further discovery responses is GRANTED.  Plaintiff Wilson is ordered to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One within twenty days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   December 7, 2023                                                   ___________________________________

                                                                                    Lee S. Arian

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            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.