Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV09685, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV09685 Hearing Date: January 23, 2024 Dept: 28
Having reviewed the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 1, 2023, Plaintiff Maria Vergara as successor for Felix Dominguez Escudero (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Walton Construction (“Walton”), Decro Corporation (“Decro”), GTO Security Corp. (“GTO”), Alex Taylor (“Taylor”), and Does 1-20 for negligence/negligence per se, premises liability, and wrongful death.
On June 16, 2023, Walton filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-50 for express indemnity, equitable indemnity, comparative partial indemnity, and declaratory relief. On September 25, 2023, Walton amended its cross-complaint to add Cross-Defendants Taylor as Roe 1 and GTO as Roe 2.
On July 3, 2023, Decro filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Walton, GTO, Taylor, and Roes 1-25 for express indemnity, implied equitable indemnity, equitable apportionment of fault, contribution, breach of contract, and declaratory relief. On August 25, 2023, Decro filed a first amended cross-complaint. On September 25, 2023, Walton filed an answer to Decro’s first amended cross-complaint.
On December 6, 2023, Walton filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to form interrogatories, set one. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for October 28, 2024.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Informal Discovery Conference
The Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts Effective October 10, 2022 (filed September 20, 2022), ¶ 9E, provides: “PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC). PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.”
Walton appeared at an IDC on January 2, 2024. Plaintiff did not appear. The Court found that Walton had complied with its IDC obligation.
B. Timeliness of motion
A
notice of motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be given within 45 days of
the service of the responses, or any supplemental responses, or on or before
any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2030.300, subd, (c).) Failure to file a motion within this time period
constitutes a waiver of any right to compel further responses to the interrogatories.
Walton
filed this motion on December 6, 2023.
Plaintiff does not dispute the timeliness of the motion.
C. Meet and confer
“A motion to compel must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) “A meet and confer declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good-faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)
Walton has provided a meet and confer declaration. Plaintiff does not dispute the adequacy of Walton’s meet and confer efforts.
D. Separate statement
With exceptions that do not apply here, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, requires that any motion involving the content of discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for why an order compelling further responses is warranted.
Walton has filed a separate statement.
APPLICABLE LAW
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides:
“(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.
“(b) (1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(2) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.
“(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.
“(d) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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.
“(e) If a party then fails to obey an order compelling further response to interrogatories, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 provides:
“(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.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.)
DISCUSSION
Motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to form interrogatories, set one
Propounded:
June 16, 2023
Responses: August
3, 2023
Motion filed: December 6, 2023
“In response to a motion to compel answers [citation], the burden is on the party claiming a privilege to establish whatever preliminary facts are essential to the claim. [Citations.] [¶] For example, upon asserting the attorney-client privilege, the client, or the attorney in the client’s absence, must prove that the attorney-client relationship existed when the communication was made. Once this showing is made (typically through declarations), the communications between the lawyer and client are presumed to have been made in confidence. [Citations.] [¶] Upon such showing, the burden shifts to the party seeking discovery to disprove those facts or to prove some applicable statutory exception (e.g., that the privilege has been waived [citation]).” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 8:192, p. 8C-61.)
Plaintiff has not carried her burden of establishing the preliminary facts essential to support her assertions of attorney-client privilege and work product protection.
With respect to form interrogatory 9.2, if an expert witness whose identity is protected by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.230 possesses responsive documents or material, Plaintiff need not disclose the identity of that expert witness.
Granted: 6.4, 6.7, 9.2, 10.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 14.1
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Walton Construction to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, as set forth above.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.