Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00701, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23NWCV00701 Hearing Date: March 12, 2024 Dept: C
Roberto Santos Hernandez vs Universal Waste
Systems, Inc., et al
Case No.: 23NWCV00701
Hearing Date: March 12, 2024 @ 9:30 AM
#3
Tentative Ruling
I.
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses
to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Further responses are due in 20 days. No sanctions are imposed.
II.
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Special Interrogatories is CONTINUED to Tuesday, May 21, 2024 at
9:30 a.m. in Department SE-C.
III.
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses
to Requests for Production is CONTINUED to Tuesday, May 21, 2024 at 9:30 a.m.
in Department SE-C.
Defendant to give notice.
Background
This case involves a March 17, 2021 collision of two
sanitation trucks in the driveway of a landfill in Santa Fe Springs,
California. The truck owned by Defendant UNIVERSAL WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.
(“Defendant”) drove into the rear-end of the smaller truck driven by Plaintiff
ROBERTO SANTOS HERNANDEZ (“Plaintiff”).
The Complaint alleges two causes of action for Negligence.
Defendant moves this Court for further verified responses
to its Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for
Production, as well as sanctions in connection with each motion.
Meet and Confer Requirement
A
motion¿to compel further responses to requests for production “shall be
accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc. §
2031.310(b)(2).)¿ The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and
good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the
motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.)¿
Defendant argues it has attempted to meet
and confer with Plaintiff, but Plaintiff has refused to do so. Plaintiff asserts that any omissions he may
have made in his discovery responses are harmless because Defendant has already
obtained the information it seeks through third party subpoenas. The Court finds that the
parties have NOT satisfied the meet and confer requirements. However, the court will exercise its
discretion to address the Form Interrogatories in order to provide guidance for
future meet and confer efforts.
Counsel are advised that their meet and
confer efforts should go beyond merely sending letters stating their respective
positions. (See Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431,
1439.) “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is
adequate…involves the exercise of discretion. The level of effort at an
informal resolution which satisfies the ‘reasonable and good faith attempt’
standard depends upon the circumstances. In a larger, more complex discovery
request, a greater effort at informal resolution may be warranted. In a
simpler, or more narrowly focused case, a more modest effort may suffice. The
history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the
nature of the issues, the type and scope of the discovery requested, the
prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant. Judges have
broad powers and responsibilities to determine what measures and procedures are
appropriate in varying circumstances.” (Obregon v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67
Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)
Counsel are ORDERED to make further efforts to resolve the issues presented.
If, after exhausting those efforts, court intervention is needed, counsel may
appear and argue the merits on the continued hearing date. If counsel are
unable to informally resolve their discovery disputes, then counsel are
instructed to submit a JOINT STATEMENT with a detailed outline of the
remaining disputed issues for which a ruling is required. The joint statement
must be FILED on or before May 10, 2024.
Separate Statement
A motion to compel further
responses requires a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1345(a).) The parties properly filed separate statements.
Legal Standard
A
party may make a demand for production of documents
and propound interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after
the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand
is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020, subd. (b);
Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).) The demand for production of documents
is not limited by number, but the request must comply with the formatting
requirements in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030.
The party whom the request is propounded upon is required to
respond within 30 days after service of a demand, but the parties are allowed
to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060, subd.
(a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.070, subd. (a) - (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.070,
subd. (a) - (b).)
If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production or
interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any right to
exercise the option to produce writings under Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230, and
waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for
work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., §
2030.290, subd. (a).)
Discussion
Form Interrogatory No. 4.1
·
At the time of the INCIDENT, was there in
effect any policy of insurance through which you were or might be insured in
any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability coverage or
medical expense coverage) for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen
out of the INCIDENT? If so, for each policy state: (a) the kind of coverage;
(b) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and
telephone number of each named insured; (d) the policy number; (e) the limits of
coverage for each type of coverage contained in the policy; (f) whether any
reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute exists between you and
the insurance company; and (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the
custodian of the policy.
Plaintiff indicates he produced a photocopy of his Kaiser
Permanente insurance card in response to Defendant’s Requests for Production. With respect to the form interrogatory,
however, Plaintiff’s response is incomplete.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel a further
response to Form Interrogatory No. 4.1 is GRANTED.
·
Identify each injury you attribute to the
INCIDENT and the area of your body affected.
Defendant argues Plaintiff has provided an evasive and
incomplete response because Plaintiff has failed to specify in sufficient
detail which portions of his medical records are responsive to the form
interrogatory. This is unnecessary,
however, because Plaintiff’s response includes a list of injuries he has
suffered. However, the list is
incomplete in so far as Plaintiff does not indicate whether the list contains all
injuries known to Plaintiff at this time.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to
compel a further response to Form Interrogatory No. 6.2 is GRANTED in part.
·
Do you still have any complaints that you
attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each complaint state: (a) a description;
(b) whether the complaint is subsiding, remaining the same, or becoming worse;
and (c) the frequency and duration.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s response is improper
because it merely refers to Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory No.
6.2. Plaintiff’s response to No. 6.3
makes no such reference. The response is
code-complaint.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to
compel a further response to Form Interrogatory No. 6.3 is DENIED.
Form Interrogatory No. 6.4
·
Did you receive any consultation or examination
(except from expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.310)
or treatment from a HEALTH CARE PROVIDER for any injury you attribute to the
INCIDENT? If so, for each HEALTH CARE
PROVIDER state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number; (b) the type of
consultation, examination, or treatment provided; (c) the dates you received
consultation, examination, or treatment; and (d) the charges to date.
Defendant argues the response is incomplete because
Plaintiff fails to provide the amount charged by Southern California Immediate
Medical Center. However, Plaintiff’s
response is sufficient because it indicates the charges are unknown at this
time.
For certain health care providers, Plaintiff provided a
range of dates he was seen. Plaintiff
argues that he need not provide specific dates he was seen because such
information is contained in his medical and billing records. This response fails to comply with the
Code. Plaintiff is ordered to provide
specific dates he was seen by health care providers.
Form Interrogatory No. 6.5
·
Have you taken any medication, prescribed or
not, as a result of injuries that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for
each medication state: (a) the name; (b) the PERSON who prescribed or furnished
it; (c) the date it was prescribed or furnished; (d) the dates you began and
stopped taking it; and (e) the cost to date.
Plaintiff argues that the information requested in No. 6.5 can
be found in Plaintiff’s medical and billing records. This response fails to comply with the
Code. Moreover, providing information
about medication prescribed is not the same as information about
medication taken. Plaintiff is
ordered to provide a complete response to No. 6.5
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel a further
response to Form Interrogatory No. 6.5 is GRANTED.
Form Interrogatory No. 8.4
·
State your monthly income at the time of the
INCIDENT and how the amount was calculated.
Plaintiff calculated his monthly gross income based upon
his hourly wage. Defendant argues the
response is incomplete because it fails to provide an exact amount and how the
amount was calculated. The Court
determines that Plaintiff has provided a sufficient response. Defendant may obtain more detailed wage information
through other means.
Form Interrogatory Nos. 8.5, 8.6, and 8.7
·
8.5: State the date you returned to work at
each place of employment following the INCIDENT.
·
8.6: State the dates you did not work and for
which you lost income as a result of the INCIDENT.
·
8.7: State the total income you have lost to
date as a result of the INCIDENT and how the amount was calculated.
As to Nos. 8.5 and 8.6, Plaintiff argues he is not required
to provide the exact date he returned to work and the dates he missed work
because the information is contained in records Defendant has already obtained
from third parties. This response fails
to comply with the Code as the information is readily available to
Plaintiff. Plaintiff is ordered to
provide complete responses to Nos. 8.5 and 8.6.
As to 8.7, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s response is
incomplete and evasive because he fails to provide an exact amount of income he
has lost to date. Plaintiff argues that
an exact amount cannot be provided without the assistance of experts, and
expert designations have not occurred yet.
The Court will not compel an exact amount of lost income at this time.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel a further
response is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatory Nos. 8.5 and 8.6 and DENIED as to
Form Interrogatory No. 8.7.
Form Interrogatory No. 8.8
·
Will you lose income in the future as a result
of the INCIDENT? If so, state: (a) the facts upon which you base this
contention; (b) an estimate of the amount; (c) an estimate of how long you will
be unable to work; and (d) how the claim for future income is calculated.
Plaintiff responded, “Unknown at the present time. Discovery and investigation continue.” Plaintiff argues that a further response is
unnecessary because “Plaintiff did not have any treatments scheduled in the
future that he knew would force him to miss work.” If that is true, Plaintiff should so state in
a verified response. Plaintiff is
ordered to provide a complete response to No. 8.8.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to
compel a further response to Form Interrogatory No. 8.8 is GRANTED.
Form Interrogatory Nos 9.1 and 9.2
·
No. 9.1: Are there any other damages that you
attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item of damage state: (a) the
nature; (b) the date it occurred; (c) the amount; and (d) the name, ADDRESS,
and telephone number of each PERSON to whom an obligation was incurred.
·
No 9.2: Do any DOCUMENTS support the existence
or amount of any item of damages claimed in interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe
each document and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON
who has each document.
Plaintiff argues general damages are allowed under the
holding of Thayer v. Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th
141, 156. Defendant fails to explain why it believes Plaintiff’s responses are
insufficient.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses
to Form Interrogatory Nos. 9.1 and 9.2 are DENIED.
Form Interrogatory Nos 12.1
and 20.1
·
12.1: State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone
number of each individual: (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events
occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; (b) who made any statement
at the scene of the INCIDENT; (c) who heard any statements made about the
INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and (d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON
YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses
covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034)
Plaintiff responded to subpart (d) as follows: Responding
Party, Defendant, Responding Party’s medical providers, friends, and family
members who have witnessed his injuries. Discovery and investigation continue.”
Plaintiff has already provided the names of health care
providers in response to No. 6.4, so no further response is compelled in that
regard. However, Plaintiff makes no
attempt explain his failure to identify and provide contact information for
friends and family members who have witnessed his injuries. Therefore, Plaintiff is ordered to provide a
complete response to subpart (d) with respect to family members and
friends.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel a further
response to Form Interrogatory No. 12.1 is GRANTED in part.
Form Interrogatory No. 20.2
·
20.2: For each vehicle involved in the
INCIDENT, state: (a) the year, make, model, and license number; (b) the name,
ADDRESS, and telephone number of the driver; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and
telephone number of each occupant other than the driver; (d) the name, ADDRESS,
and telephone number of each registered owner; (e) the name, ADDRESS, and
telephone number of each lessee; (f) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of
each owner other than the registered owner or lien holder; and (g) the name of
each owner who gave permission or consent to the driver to operate the vehicle.
Defendant argues that even if Plaintiff does not know the
year, make, model and registered owner of his employer’s vehicle, he should at
least state the identity of any other occupant of the vehicle. Plaintiff does not address this point. Plaintiff is ordered to provide a complete
response to subpart (c).
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel a further
response to Form Interrogatory No. 20.2 is GRANTED in part.
Sanctions
The court shall impose a
monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a
motion to compel further responses to interrogatories or demand for production
of documents unless the party subject to the sanction acted with substantial
justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc.,
§§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h), 2033.290, subd. (d).)
Given the mixed result, the
Court declines to impose sanctions at this time.
Accordingly, sanctions are
DENIED.