TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Dylan Jahanbiglou’s Motion for Protective Order Reducing the Number of Special Interrogatories That Defendants Must Respond to is GRANTED. Plaintiff Miriam Saadia may propound a revised first set of no more than 35 special interrogatories.

Defendant Dylan Jahanbiglou’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant Dylan Jahanbiglou to give notice. 

REASONING

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.090, subdivision (b), provides that “[t]he court for good cause shown may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” The protective order may include direction “[t]hat, contrary to the representations made in a declaration submitted under Section 2030.050, the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.090, subd. (b)(2).)

Defendant Dylan Jahanbiglou (“Defendant”) moves for a protective order directing that Defendant need only respond to 35 of the special interrogatories propounded on him by Plaintiff Miriam Saadia (“Plaintiff”) after Plaintiff propounded 83 special interrogatories, 75 form interrogatories, 55 requests for production of documents, and 28 requests for admission. Defendant contends that the declaration for additional discovery does not establish that the number of interrogatories was warranted because of the complexity of the case, many of the interrogatories seek irrelevant information or information addressed in other discovery. Plaintiff has not agreed to reduce the number of interrogatories despite meet-and-confer efforts, and Plaintiff has not opposed the present motion.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.030, subdivision (b), limits the number of special interrogatories that can be propounded, as a matter of right to 35 interrogatories. A propounding party who wishes to propound more than 35 special interrogatories must serve a declaration of necessity pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.040, subdivision (a), on the ground that the complexity or the quantity of issues in the case warrants additional interrogatories, the financial burden of conducting discovery by oral deposition is excessive, or the higher number will assist the responding party in conducting an investigation or search of files to supply the information sought.

Under Code of Civil Procedure, subdivision (b), “[i]f the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted, the propounding party shall have the burden of justifying the number of these interrogatories.” Notably, Plaintiff has failed to oppose this motion to state how the number of interrogatories above 35 is warranted, and the declaration attached to the discovery provides no further information, as Plaintiff’s counsel simply restates the legal standard set forth in the statute, stating as follows:

The number of requests is warranted under Section 2030.040 of the Code of Civil Procedure because of the quantity and complexity of the issues presented in this action. As such, the number of requests is warranted because of the financial burden on a party entailed in conducting the discovery by oral deposition; and the expedience of using this method of discovery to provide the responding party the opportunity to conduct an inquiry, investigation, or search of files or records to supply the information sought.

(Mot., Bandhold Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A, Ahoubim Decl. ¶ 8.) This action arises from a motor vehicle accident between two vehicles, and Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege any complex facts about the incident. Thus, without specific information in counsel’s declaration, the allegations in the pleading, or an opposition to the motion, the Court cannot conclude that it was necessary to propound more than 35 special interrogatories. Accordingly, Defendant Dylan Jahanbiglou’s Motion for Protective Order Reducing the Number of Special Interrogatories That Defendants Must Respond to is GRANTED. Plaintiff Miriam Saadia may propound a revised first set of no more than 35 special interrogatories.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.090, subdivision (d), provides that “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order under this section, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Because Plaintiff has not opposed the present motion, monetary sanctions are not warranted; accordingly, Defendant Dylan Jahanbiglou’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.