Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV25551, Date: 2024-12-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV25551 Hearing Date: December 12, 2024 Dept: 28
Having reviewed the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff Jose Munoz, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Dorothy Weichi Pan (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On February 9, 2024, Defendant filed an answer.
On September 23, 2024, Defendant filed (1) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions and (2) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on November 7, 2024. On October 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed oppositions and requests for sanctions. On October 29, 2024, Defendant filed replies. The Court continued the hearing to December 12, 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.”
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) [interrogatories].) When, as
here, the responses are electronically served, the moving party has an
additional 2 court days to file the motion.
(See Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3); L. Edmon & C. Karnow,
Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2024) ¶ 8:1146, p. 8F-60
(Cal. Practice Guide).) Failure to file
a motion within this time period constitutes a waiver of any right to compel
further responses to interrogatories.
C. Meet and confer
A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories 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 in support of a motion shall 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.)
Defendant has provided meet and confer declarations.
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 why an order compelling further responses is warranted.
Defendant has filed separate statements.
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.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 provides:
“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.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.)
A. Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses
to special interrogatory numbers 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 12
Special interrogatories propounded: April 2, 2024
Initial responses served: May 17, 2024
Amended responses
served: June 24, 2024
Motion filed:
September 23, 2024
Denied: Special
interrogatory number 2
B. Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses
to form interrogatory numbers 6.2 and 6.7
Form
interrogatories propounded: April
2, 2024
Responses served: May
17, 2024
Motion filed: September
23, 2024
The Court denies both parties’ requests for monetary sanctions, finding that counsel disagreed in good faith about whether Plaintiff had complied with his discovery obligations.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS in part Defendant Dorothy Weichi Pan’s motion to compel Plaintiff Jose Munoz, Jr.’s further responses to special interrogatories. The Court orders Plaintiff Jose Munoz, Jr. to serve further verified code-compliant responses to special interrogatory numbers 3, 8, 9, 10, and 12 by January 9, 2025. In all other respects, the Court DENIES the motion.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Dorothy Weichi Pan’s motion to compel Plaintiff Jose Munoz, Jr.’s further responses to form interrogatories. The Court orders Plaintiff Jose Munoz, Jr. to serve further verified code-compliant responses to form interrogatory numbers 6.2 and 6.7 by January 9, 2025.
The Court DENIES both parties’ requests for sanctions.
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.