Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01933, Date: 2024-08-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23NWCV01933 Hearing Date: August 13, 2024 Dept: C
Marrion Mirasol vs Ecolab,
Inc., et al.
Case No.: 23NWCV01933
Hearing Date: August 13, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m.
#3
Tentative Ruling
Defendant Ecolab, Inc.’s Motions to Compel
Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories,
Set One, and Request for Production, Set One, are GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part as set forth below. Responses are
due in 45 days. Sanctions in the sum of
$1500.00 are imposed upon Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel, jointly and
severally, payable within 60 days.
Defendant to give notice.
BACKGROUND
This lawsuit involves a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff Marrion Mirasol (“Plaintiff”) alleges
that on December 28, 2021, Plaintiff was travelling at Gridley Road and 195th
Street in Cerritos, California, when suddenly and without warning Defendants Ecolab,
Inc., Lease Plan USA, and Perfecto Carpina struck Plaintiff’s vehicle and caused
a collision. (Complaint, p. 5.)
Plaintiff sustained bodily injury and damages. (Id.) In a
Complaint filed June 21, 2023, Plaintiff sues Defendants for Negligence.
On October 5, 2023, Defendant Ecolab, Inc. (“Defendant”) served
Plaintiff with Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Special
Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One. (Kilroy Decl., ¶ 4;
Exhibit A.) Plaintiff's responses to the discovery requests were due on
November 6, 2023. (Kilroy Decl., ¶5.) Defense counsel provided Plaintiff's
counsel with an extension on November 6, 2023, after Plaintiff's counsel sent
an email requesting an extension to December 6, 2023. (Kilroy Decl., ¶6;
Exhibit B.) On December 6, 2023, Defense counsel provided Plaintiff's counsel
with an extension to December 20, 2023 to serve responses to Ecolab's first set
of written discovery. (Id.) On December 15, 2023, upon request from Plaintiff's
counsel, Defense counsel provided Plaintiff's counsel with a further two-week
extension to serve responses to Defendant Ecolab's first set of written
discovery. (Id.) On January 3, 2024, Defendant received Plaintiff's discovery
responses. (Kilroy Decl., ¶7; Exhibit C.) However, Plaintiff failed to provide
complete responses to certain requests. (Id.) As such, on February 13, 2024, Defendant
sent a meet and confer letter regarding its’ view of Plaintiff's deficient
discovery responses. (Kilroy Decl., ¶8; Exhibit D.) On February 21, 2024,
Defense counsel provided Plaintiff's counsel with an extension to March 13,
2024, after Plaintiff's counsel requested an additional extension of time to
consider Defendant's meet and confer demands, including those concerning
Plaintiff's initial responses to Request for Production, Set One. (Kilroy
Decl., ¶9; Exhibit E.)
On March 13, 2024, Defendant received Plaintiff's
supplemental responses. (Kilroy Decl., ¶10; Exhibit F.) However, Defendant argues
that the responses are still insufficient.
Defendant has filed three motions to compel further responses
Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests
for Production of Documents, Set One.
As a preliminary matter, Defendant contends the Court
should disregard any Opposition because it fails to include a separate
statement and because it is seventeen pages long.
Defendant cites no authority for the contention that a
separate statement must be filed in opposition. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, cited by
Defendant, only requires that a separate statement accompany the motion.
The Court exercises its discretion to consider the
Opposition to the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
even though it exceeds the page limit.
DISCUSSION
“(a) The
party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing
under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: (1) An
answer containing the information sought to be discovered; (2) An exercise
of the party’s option to produce writings; (3) An objection to the
particular interrogatory.” (CCP § 2030.210.)
“(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.”
(CCP § 2030.220.)
“(a) 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.” (CCP §
2030.300.)
Form Interrogatory Nos. 9.2,
10.1, 10.2, and 10.3
The following Form Interrogatories
are at issue:
·
FI 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.
·
FI 10.1: At any time before the INCIDENT did
you have complaints or injuries that involved the same part of your body
claimed to have been injured in the INCIDENT? If so, for each state: (a) a
description of the complaint or injury; (b) the dates it began and ended; and
(c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER whom
you consulted or who examined or treated you.
·
FI 10.2: List all physical, mental, and
emotional disabilities you had immediately before the INCIDENT. (You may omit
mental or emotional disabilities unless you attribute any mental or emotional
injury to the INCIDENT.)
·
FI 10.3: At any time after the INCIDENT, did
you sustain injuries of the kind for which you are now claiming damages? If so,
for each incident giving rise to an injury state:(a) the date and the place it
occurred; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any other PERSON
involved; (c) the nature of any inquiries you sustained; (d) the name, ADDRESS,
and telephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER who you consulted or who
examined or treated you; and (e) the nature of the treatment and its duration.
Plaintiff states that further
verified, supplemental responses to Form Interrogatory Nos.
9.2, 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 will be provided.
Accordingly, the motion to
compel further responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 9.2, 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3
is GRANTED. The responses shall be
limited to a period of five (5) years before the subject incident.
Special Interrogatories
Special Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 28, 30, 31, 36,
39 and 45
·
SI No. 2: “State the time the INCIDENT
occurred. (As used herein, INCIDENT includes the circumstances and events
concerning your allegations of wrongdoing against defendants which gave rise to
this action.)”
·
SI No. 3: “State the location YOU were coming
from prior to the INCIDENT. (As used herein, INCIDENT includes the
circumstances and events concerning YOUR allegations of wrongdoing against
defendants which gave rise to this action.)”
·
SI No. 4: “State where YOU were going at the
time of the INCIDENT, including YOUR intended destination. (As used herein,
INCIDENT includes the circumstances and events concerning YOUR allegations of
wrongdoing against defendants which gave rise to this action.)”
·
SI No. 5: “State whether YOU utilized any turn
signal in the ten (10) seconds prior to the impact with any vehicle YOU allege
to be DEFENDANT’s vehicle. (As used herein, DEFENDANT includes ECOLAB INC., as
named in Plaintiff’s Complaint).”
·
SI No. 6: “If YOU utilized a turn signal in the
ten (10) seconds prior to the impact with any vehicle YOU allege to be
DEFENDANT’s vehicle, which signal was used? (As used herein, DEFENDANT includes
ECOLAB INC., as named in Plaintiff’s Complaint).”
·
SI No. 7: “Did YOU use YOUR horn in the ten
(10) seconds prior to the impact with any vehicle YOU allege to be DEFENDANT’s
vehicle? (As used herein, DEFENDANT includes ECOLAB INC., as named in
Plaintiff’s Complaint).”
·
SI No. 8: “State the location of any vehicle
YOU allege to be DEFENDANT’s vehicle at the time YOU first observed said
vehicle(s). (As used herein, DEFENDANT includes ECOLAB INC., as named in
Plaintiff’s Complaint).”
·
SI No. 9: “State every action YOU took in an
effort to avoid the occurrent of the INCIDENT. (As used herein, INCIDENT
includes the circumstances and events concerning your allegations of wrongdoing
against defendants which gave rise to this action.)”
·
SI No. 17: “State YOUR best estimate of the
speed of YOUR vehicle just prior to impact.”
·
SI No. 19: “IDENTIFY all opticians,
optometrists and/or ophthalmologists who have provided care to YOU in the past
ten (10) years. (As used herein, IDENTIFY means a description including the
person’s full name, age, home and business address (including postal code, if
known), and home and business telephone number (including area code, if
known).)”
·
SI No. 21: “Have you ever treated with a
chiropractor at any time prior to the INCIDENT? (As used herein, INCIDENT
includes the circumstances and events concerning your allegations of wrongdoing
against defendants which gave rise to this action.)”
·
SI No. 22: “IDENTIFY the name of any
chiropractor with whom YOU treated prior to the INCIDENT. (As used herein,
IDENTIFY means a description including the person’s full name, age, home and
business address (including postal code, if known), and home and business
telephone number (including area code, if known). As used herein, INCIDENT
includes the circumstances and events concerning your allegations of wrongdoing
against defendants which gave rise to this action.)”
·
SI No. 28: “IDENTIFY all individuals who
inspected YOUR vehicle for the purpose of evaluating the damage to YOUR vehicle
after the INCIDENT. (As used herein, IDENTIFY means a description including the
person's full name, age, home and business address (including postal code, if
known), and home and business telephone number (including area code, if known).
As used herein, INCIDENT includes the circumstances and events concerning your
allegations of wrongdoing against defendants which gave rise to this action.)”
·
SI No. 30: “Describe the duties YOU regularly
performed through YOUR employment before the INCIDENT. (As used herein,
INCIDENT includes the circumstances and events concerning your allegations of
wrongdoing against defendants which gave rise to this action.)”
·
SI No. 31: “Describe the duties YOU regularly
performed through YOUR employment after the INCIDENT. (As used herein, INCIDENT
includes the circumstances and events concerning your allegations of wrongdoing
against defendants which gave rise to this action.)”
·
SI No. 36: “IDENTIFY any medical pay carrier
who provided coverage to YOU at any time after the INCIDENT. (As used herein,
IDENTIFY means a description including the person’s full name, age, home and
business address (including postal code, if known), and home and business
telephone number (including area code, if known). As used herein, INCIDENT
includes the circumstances and events concerning your allegations of wrongdoing
against defendants which gave rise to this action.)”
·
SI No. 39: “Describe with specificity all
policies of medical insurance in effect for YOU at the time of the INCIDENT to
the present, including the name, address, and telephone number of each medical
insurance provider, the policy number and the policy and/or coverage period.
(As used herein, INCIDENT includes the circumstances and events concerning your
allegations of wrongdoing against defendants which gave rise to this action.)”
·
SI No. 45: “If YOU have taken any out-of-town
trips or vacations since the date of the INCIDENT, state the date, location and
duration of each such trip or vacation. (As used herein, INCIDENT includes the
circumstances and events concerning your allegations of wrongdoing against
defendants which gave rise to this action.)”
After reviewing the responses
and supplemental responses to the above Special Interrogatories, the Court
finds the responses are sufficient.
Accordingly, the motion to compel
further Response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.17, 19, 20,
21, 22, 28, 30, 31, 36, 39 and 45 is DENIED.
Special Interrogatory No. 29:
“Describe with specificity all
maintenance and mechanical repairs performed on the vehicle YOU were driving at
the time of the INCIDENT from 2015 to the present, including the type of
maintenance/repair, the date on which such maintenance/repair occurred, who
performed such maintenance/repair, and the cost of such maintenance/repair. (As
used herein, INCIDENT includes the circumstances and events concerning your
allegations of wrongdoing against defendants which gave rise to this action.)”
Plaintiff responded, “Plaintiff
does not recall all maintenance or mechanical repairs performed on the vehicle
he was driving at the time of the subject incident.” The Court determines the response is evasive
and incomplete.
Accordingly, the motion to
compel further response to Special Interrogatory No. 29 is GRANTED.
Special Interrogatory No. 41
“Please set forth the total
amount of medical expenses submitted to any government medical program,
including Medicare or Medi-Cal, as a result of the INCIDENT. (As used herein,
INCIDENT includes the circumstances and events concerning your allegations of
wrongdoing against defendants which gave rise to this action.)”
Plaintiff responded, “No
medical expenses were submitted to Plaintiff’s medical insurance company.” Defendant argues the response is evasive and
incomplete because the interrogatory calls for medical expenses submitted to
any government medical program, not Plaintiff’s medical insurance company. The Court agrees.
The motion to compel further response
to Special Interrogatory No. 41 is GRANTED.
Special Interrogatory No. 46:
“State the date YOU first
contacted an attorney relating to the INCIDENT. (As used herein, INCIDENT
includes the circumstances and events concerning your allegations of wrongdoing
against defendants which gave rise to this action.”
Plaintiff initially responded,
“Plaintiff does not recall but it was after the subject incident.” Plaintiff’s supplemental response stated, “After
a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information, Responding Party
lacks the personal knowledge to fully respond to this interrogatory.” Defendant
argues the date should be readily available to Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s
attorneys. The Court agrees.
Accordingly, the motion to compel
further response to Special Interrogatory No. 46 is GRANTED.
Special Interrogatory No. 48:
“IDENTIFY all HEALTH CARE
PROVIDERS who have examined or treated YOU for any reason from January 1, 2011
to the present. (As used herein, IDENTIFY means a description including the
person’s full name, age, home and business address (including postal code, if
known), and home and business telephone number (including area code, if known).
As used herein, HEALTH CARE PROVIDER includes any person or entity, including,
but not limited to hospitals, medical doctors, osteopathic physicians,
chiropractors, physical therapists, massage therapists, dental care
professionals, Oriental medicine practitioners, holistic medicine
practitioners, psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health
professionals, with whom you treated or consulted.)”
Plaintiff contends that this
request is overbroad. The Court agrees.
The special interrogatory shall be limited to health care providers who
examined or treated Plaintiff for a medical condition at issue in this lawsuit for
a period of five (5) years before the subject incident.
Accordingly, the motion to compel
further response to Special Interrogatory No. 48 is GRANTED in part.
Special Interrogatory No. 54:
“State how the amount of
non-economic damages that YOU are claiming in this action was calculated.”
Plaintiff responded, “Amount
to be determined at trial.” Plaintiff will
amend to provide an estimated amount of such damages. Beyond that, the Court determines that the
calculation of non-economic damages is not properly compelled at this stage of
the proceedings.
Accordingly, the motion to compel
further response to Special Interrogatory No 54 is DENIED.
Special Interrogatory No. 67:
“Describe with specificity any
liens that have been provided to any health care provider for care and
treatment YOU received as a result of the INCIDENT, including the name,
address, and telephone number of each provider who has a lien, and the date and
amount of each lien. (As used herein, INCIDENT includes the circumstances and
events concerning your allegations of wrongdoing against defendants which gave
rise to this action.)”
Plaintiff objects based on his
privacy rights. The Court determines the
interrogatory is reasonably related to the value of medical services rendered
to Plaintiff as a result of Defendant’s conduct.
Accordingly, the motion to compel
further response Special Interrogatory No. 67 is GRANTED.
Special
Interrogatory Nos. 74, 77, 80, 83, and 86
No. 74: “Describe all
DOCUMENTS (As used herein, DOCUMENT or DOCUMENTS means a writing, as defined in
Evidence Code § 250, and includes the original or copy of: handwriting,
typewriting, correspondence, records, tables, charts, graphs, schedules,
reports, memoranda, notes, letters, telegrams, messages, reports of telephone
conversations, reports of conferences, books, journals, ledgers, checks,
receipts, invoices, instructions, minutes, purchase orders, films, film strips,
motion picture film, magnetic or other recorded tapes, transcriptions, and
other written, printed or recorded material of any kind.) which YOU claim
support YOUR contentions that DEFENDANT was negligent at the time of the
INCIDENT. (As used herein, INCIDENT includes the circumstances and events
concerning your allegations of wrongdoing against defendants which gave rise to
this action. As used herein, DEFENDANT includes ECOLAB INC., as named in
Plaintiff’s Complaint).)
No. 77: “Describe all
DOCUMENTS (As used herein, DOCUMENT or DOCUMENTS means a writing, as defined in
Evidence Code § 250, and includes the original or copy of: handwriting,
typewriting, correspondence, records, tables, charts, graphs, schedules,
reports, memoranda, notes, letters, telegrams, messages, reports of telephone
conversations, reports of conferences, books, journals, ledgers, checks,
receipts, invoices, instructions, minutes, purchase orders, films, film strips,
motion picture film, magnetic or other recorded tapes, transcriptions, and
other written, printed or recorded material of any kind.) which YOU claim
support YOUR contention that DEFENDANT “negligently and carelessly managed
their vehicle” as stated on page 5 of YOUR COMPLAINT. (As used herein, DEFENDANT
includes ECOLAB INC., as named in Plaintiff’s Complaint).”
No. 80: “Describe all
DOCUMENTS (As used herein, DOCUMENT or DOCUMENTS means a writing, as defined in
Evidence Code § 250, and includes the original or copy of: handwriting,
typewriting, correspondence, records, tables, charts, graphs, schedules,
reports, memoranda, notes, letters, telegrams, messages, reports of telephone
conversations, reports of conferences, books, journals, ledgers, checks,
receipts, invoices, instructions, minutes, purchase orders, films, film strips,
motion picture film, magnetic or other recorded tapes, transcriptions, and
other written, printed or recorded material of any kind.) which YOU claim
support YOUR contention that DEFENDANT negligently maintained their vehicle as
stated on page 5 of YOUR COMPLAINT.(As used herein, DEFENDANT includes ECOLAB
INC., as named in Plaintiff’s Complaint).”
No. 83: “Describe all
DOCUMENTS (As used herein, DOCUMENT or DOCUMENTS means a writing, as defined in
Evidence Code § 250, and includes the original or copy of: handwriting,
typewriting, correspondence, records, tables, charts, graphs, schedules,
reports, memoranda, notes, letters, telegrams, messages, reports of telephone
conversations, reports of conferences, books, journals, ledgers, checks,
receipts, invoices, instructions, minutes, purchase orders, films, film strips,
motion picture film, magnetic or other recorded tapes, transcriptions, and
other written, printed or recorded material of any kind.) which YOU claim
support YOUR contention that DEFENDANT negligently entrusted their vehicle as
stated on page 5 of YOUR COMPLAINT. (As used herein, DEFENDANT includes ECOLAB
INC., as named in Plaintiff’s Complaint).”
No. 86: “Describe all
DOCUMENTS which YOU claim support YOUR contention that DEFENDANT negligently
operated their vehicle as stated on page 5 of YOUR COMPLAINT.(As used herein,
DEFENDANT includes ECOLAB INC., as named in Plaintiff’s Complaint).”
As to Special Interrogatory
Nos. 74, 77, 80 and 86, Plaintiff responded, “1. Photographs 2. Vehicle
estimate. Discovery and investigation are ongoing. Responding Party reserves
the right to supplement and/or amend this response should additional
information become available.” Plaintiff’s
supplemental response stated, “Plaintiff is producing electronic copies of
vehicle estimate on supplemental responses to Defendant's Requests for
Production of Documents, Set One.”
As to Special Interrogatory
No. 83, Plaintiff responded, “Discovery has just commenced and no reasonable
opportunity to review.”
“If the answer to an
interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation,
abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the
interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making
it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory
as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to
refer to this section and to specify the writings from which the answer may be
derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in sufficient detail to
permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the
responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.
The responding party shall then afford to the propounding party a reasonable
opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies,
compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them.” (CCP § 2030.230, underline
added.)
The Court determines that
Plaintiff’s responses are incomplete and do not comply with CCP §
2030.230.
Accordingly, the motion to compel
further response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 74, 77, 80, 83, and 86 is
GRANTED.
Request
for Production of Documents
“(a) The party to whom a demand for
inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond
separately to each item or category of item by any of the following: (1) A
statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection,
copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying,
testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section
2031.030 and
any related activities; (2) A representation that the party lacks the
ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling
of a particular item or category of item; (3) An objection to the
particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.” (CCP §
2031.210.)
“A representation of inability to comply with
the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall
affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an
effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether
the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never
existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never
been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding
party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person
or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or
control of that item or category of item.” (CCP § 2031.230.)
“(a) On 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.” (CCP § 2031.310.)
Request for Production of
Documents Nos. 3-9, 13-14, 17-19, 23-24, and 47
As to these requests for
production of documents, Plaintiff has agreed to produce any and all documents
in his possession, custody, and control.
Accordingly, the motion to compel
further responses to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 3-9, 13-14,
17-19, 23-24, and 47 is GRANTED.
Request for Production of Documents
No. 10
“Any and all DOCUMENTS,
statements, memoranda, receipts, invoices, correspondence, and other writings
relating to YOUR claim for wage loss as a result of the INCIDENT.”
Plaintiff’s supplemental
response states, “After conducting a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
Responding Party is not in possession of any documents that are responsive to
this demand.”
Defendant argues that
Plaintiff has identified two separate employers in his responses to Form Interrogatories,
Set One. Plaintiff represents he is not
currently asserting a claim for lost wages.
Given this representation, the Court determines that the response is
code compliant.
Accordingly, the motion to
compel further response to Request for Production of Documents No. 10 is
DENIED.
Request
for Production of Documents No. 11
“All DOCUMENTS, including YOUR W-2 forms, that reflect
income received by YOU for any and all employment from January 1, 2015 to the
present.”
Accordingly,
the motion to compel further response to Request for Production of Documents
No. 11 is GRANTED.
Request for Production of Documents No. 12
“Any and all DOCUMENTS, statements, memoranda, receipts,
invoices, correspondence, and other writings relating to YOUR claim for future
loss of earning capacity as a result of the INCIDENT.”
In Opposition, Plaintiff states, “After a diligent search
and reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff does not have any documents in his
possession, custody, and/or control.” (Opp., p. 3:17-18.) Plaintiff shall state
as much in a verified response.
Accordingly, the motion to compel further response to Request
for Production of Documents No. 12 is GRANTED.
Request for Production of Documents No. 26:
“A true and correct copy of the labels for any and all
containers that hold any medication which YOU are currently taking.”
Request for Production of Documents No. 26 is not included
in the Separate Statement. The Court does
not consider Request for Production of Documents No. 26, and the motion to
compel further response is DENIED.
Request for Production of Documents No. 36:
“Any and all DOCUMENTS which evidence or reflect the
purchase or lease of the vehicle YOU were driving at the time of the INCIDENT.”
Plaintiff responded, “After conducting a diligent search
and reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff has no documents in its custody, control, or
possession responsive to this request because these documents have never
existed.”
Defendant argues that in prior responses to written
discovery requests, Plaintiff identified his father, Merick Mirasol, as the
registered owner of the vehicle Plaintiff was driving at the time of the
incident, and further that Plaintiff still resides in the same home with Merick
Mirasol and that the vehicle has not been sold since the incident. Based thereon, the Court determines that the
response is incomplete and evasive.
Accordingly, the motion to compel further response to
Request for Production of Documents No. 36 is GRANTED.
Request For Production of Documents Nos. 39 and
40
RFP No. 39: “Any and all DOCUMENTS evidencing or reflecting
repairs or maintenance on the vehicle YOU were driving at the time of the
INCIDENT.”
RFP No. 40: “Any and all DOCUMENTS evidencing or reflecting
body work performed on the vehicle YOU were driving at the time of the
INCIDENT.”
Plaintiff represents he will “produce copies of the vehicle
estimate in his custody, control, or possession responsive to this request.”
Accordingly, the motion to compel further response to
Request for Production of Documents Nos. 39 and 40 is GRANTED.
Request For Production of Documents No. 41
“A copy of the automobile insurance policy which was in
effect to cover YOU or the vehicle on the date of the INCIDENT.”
Plaintiff has produced a copy of his automobile insurance
declarations page. Plaintiff contends this response is sufficient. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff does not explain why a copy of the
policy cannot be obtained after a reasonable inquiry.
Accordingly, the motion to compel further response to Request
for Production of Documents No. 41 is GRANTED.
Request For Production of Documents No. 42
“Copies of all medical insurance policies in effect for YOU
on the date of the INCIDENT.”
Plaintiff’s supplemental response states, “Responding Party
is producing a copy of Plaintiff's health care card effective at the time of
the incident.”
Plaintiff contends that producing a copy of his medical
insurance card, which clearly identifies the carrier and policy number, as well
as contact information for the insurance company, is sufficient.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff's prior responses identify
Plaintiff has a Medi-Cal beneficiary and identify an "Aetna" policy
providing coverage to Plaintiff. Based
thereon, the Court determines that the response in incomplete and evasive.
Request for Production Nos.
48, 50 and 51:
RFP No. 48: “Copies of all
text messages YOU sent or received RELATING TO THE INCIDENT.”
RFP No. 50: “All DOCUMENTS
reflecting any Gym Memberships YOU have had from January 1, 2011 to the
present.”
RFP No. 51: “All DOCUMENTS
reflecting communications between YOU and State Farm regarding the INCIDENT.”
To these requests, Plaintiff
responded, “After conducting a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
Plaintiff has at this time no documents in its custody, control, or possession
responsive to this request.
The Court determines that the responses
are not code compliant because they are qualified by “at this time”.
Accordingly, the motion to compel
further response to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 48, 50, and 51 is
GRANTED.
Sanctions
“To the extent authorized by
this chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision
of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or
attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose [sanctions] against
anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process …” (CCP
§2023.030.) Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery and
disobeying a court order to provide discovery are both misuses of the discovery
process. (CCP §§2023.010 (d) and (g).)
Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $1661.65 for the
motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, $1061.65 for the
motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, and $1461.65 for
the motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents. Given the number of incomplete and/or evasive
responses by Plaintiff, the Court imposes sanctions in the reasonable sum of
$1500.00 upon Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel, jointly and severally, payable
within 60 days.