Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00635, Date: 2023-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00635    Hearing Date: September 20, 2023    Dept: C

Jones v. Gutierrez Financial

CASE NO.:  23NWCV00635

HEARING:  9/20/23 @ 10:30 AM

#8

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Its Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Gutierrez Financial, Inc. (Defendant) moves to compel further responses to its Form Interrogatories.

Background

Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant alleging violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff uses a cane and walker for mobility and alleges he visited Defendant’s place of business in Huntington Park and observed violations of the ADA concerning the parking lot.

Legal Standard

CCP §§ 2030.300 and 2031.310 allow a party to file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories and document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.  (CCP §§ 2030.300(b) and 2031.310(b).)

The scope of discovery is “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.010.) Generally, “information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.” (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.) Materials or information need not be admissible to be discoverable.  (E.g. Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 [“Admissibility is not the test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.”].)

Discussion

The parties have adequately met and conferred.

Defendant moves to compel further response to Form Interrogatory No. 11.1 which asks:

Except for this action, in the past 10 years have you filed an action or made a written claim or demand for compensation for your personal injuries? If so, for each action, claim, or demand state:

(a) The date, time, and place and location (closest street ADDRESS or  intersection) of the INCIDENT giving rise to the action, claim, or demand;

(b) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON against whom the claim or demand was made or the action filed;

(c) The court, names of the parties, and case number of any action filed;

(d) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any attorney representing you;

(e) Whether the claim or action has been resolved or is pending; and

(f) A description of the injury.

Plaintiff’s objections to Form Interrogatory No. 11.1 are overruled, and he must provide a further response to No. 11.1.  Information regarding prior claims is within the broad scope of discovery because it is relevant to Plaintiff’s bonafide intent to return to Defendant’s business. However, claims related to non-disability cases are irrelevant because in this case Plaintiff is only seeking damages under Unruh and the ADA. Thus, Plaintiff’s relevancy objection is overruled in part. The term “personal injuries” is not so vague and ambiguous as to make the information sought not apparent. Plaintiff’s vague and ambiguous objection is overruled.

Finally, the interrogatory is not unduly burdensome. Plaintiff argues that the information sought is equally available to Defendant.  However, Form Interrogatory No. 11.1 calls for more information than is publicly available, and Plaintiff may have additional information necessary to respond fully to the interrogatory. Thus, Plaintiff’s unduly burdensome objection is overruled. Plaintiff must provide further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 11.1 as to prior disability claims.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to provide further responses within 20 days of this Order.