Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV10816, Date: 2024-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV10816, Date: 2024-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10816 Hearing Date: May 7, 2024 Dept: 27

HON. LEE S. ARIAN

DEPARTMENT 27

TENTATIVE RULING

Hearing Date: 5/7/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name: 23STCV10816 RAMIRO GUTIERREZ AYALA vs JUN LIANG

Motion: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Defendant Jun Liang

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED

Background

On May 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present auto accident case. On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant Jun Liang. Defendant served verified responses on December 7, 2023. The parties have met and conferred and attended an IDC but were unsuccessful in resolving the discovery dispute. Consequently, on January 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, specifically Nos. 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 13.1, 13.2, 15.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, 16.7, 16.9, and 16.10.

Preliminary Issue

This motion was timely filed within 45 days of Defendant’s discovery responses. Plaintiff has met his meet and confer requirement and the parties have attended an IDC prior to this hearing. On April 19, 2024, Defendant served further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 13.1, 13.2, 15.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, and 16.7. Currently, only Form Interrogatories Nos. 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 16.9, and 16.10 remain at issue.

Form Interrogatories Nos. 7.1, 7.2 And 7.3

Form Interrogatory 7.1 states “Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item of property…”

Form Interrogatory 7.2 states “Has a written estimate or evaluation been made for any item of property referred to in your answer to the preceding interrogatory? If so If so, for each estimate or evaluation state…”

Form Interrogatory 7.3 “states Has any item of property referred to in your answer to interrogatory 7.1 been repaired? If so, for each item state…”

Defendant responded "NO" to Interrogatory No. 7.1, indicating that he does not attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the incident. Defendant answered "not applicable" to Interrogatories Nos. 7.2 and 7.3, which request information relating to estimates and repairs for the damage claimed in No. 7.1. Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses by introducing purportedly contradictory evidence suggesting that Defendant did attribute damage to his vehicle to the incident.

Form Interrogatory 7.1 requires a yes or no response. Defendant answered “No” and this response is responsive, complete, and non-evasive. If Plaintiff believes that Defendant’s deposition contradicts this response, Plaintiff can use it to impeach Defendant or as grounds for sanctions. However, as stated in Holguin v. Superior Court (Hoage) (1972) 22 CA3d 812, 820, "[A] court [cannot] force a litigant to admit any particular fact if he is willing to risk a perjury prosecution or financial sanctions by denying them." Thus, Defendant’s response to No. 7.1 is code complaint and the Court has no grounds to compel defendant to answer “Yes” when they have provided verified responses stating “No”.

Interrogatories Nos. 7.2 and 7.3 only need to be answered if Defendant had answered "Yes" to 7.1. Since Defendant answered "No" to 7.1, his response that Nos. 7.2 and 7.3 are not applicable is appropriate.

Form Interrogatories Nos.16.9 and 16.10

Form Interrogatory No. 16.9 states “Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF have any DOCUMENT (for example, insurance bureau index reports) concerning claims for personal injuries made before or after the INCIDENT by a plaintiff in this case? If so, for each plaintiff state….”

Form Interrogatory No. 16.10 states “Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF have any DOCUMENT concerning the past or present physical, mental, or emotional condition of any plaintiff in this case from a HEALTH CARE PROVIDER not previously identified (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210-2034.310)? If so, for each plaintiff state…”

To both Form Interrogatories Nos. 16.9 and 16.10, which elicit a yes or no response, Defendant answered "No." These responses are therefore code compliant. Again, if Plaintiff suspects that Defendant’s responses are untruthful, they can be used to impeach Defendant. As established in Holguin v. Superior Court (Hoage) (1972) 22 CA3d 812, 820, "[A] court [cannot] force a litigant to admit any particular fact if he is willing to risk a perjury prosecution or financial sanctions by denying them." Thus, there is no basis for compelling further responses to these interrogatories.

Conclusion

Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses is denied. Since the motion to compel further is denied, sanctions are likewise denied, as discovery responses allegedly contradicted by Defendant's testimony are not proper grounds for a motion to compel further.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.