Judge Loren G. Freestone, Case 37-2023-00001672-CU-BC-CTL 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2023-00001672-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 11, 2024

01/12/2024 10:30:00 AM C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00001672-CU-BC-CTL ALLEN VS TOLUCA APARTMENTS [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Brandon Allen's motion to compel Defendant Lucas Afuyog to provide further responses to form interrogatories is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

The Objections A party may move to compel a further response if an objection 'is without merit or too general.' (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a)(3).) The burden of justifying any objection falls on the party resisting discovery. (See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541–542.) Afuyog objected to FROG 2.13 on the grounds it was 'unintelligible and impossible to answer as phrased.' This is an objection to form. The objection lacks merit, as the Judicial Council has approved the form of this interrogatory. (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023) ¶ 8:933.) Afuyog also objected to every FROG (except 2.13) as follows: 'Lack of standing to propound this request on Responding Party; violates privacy rights; calls for privileged attorney-client correspondence; misuse of discovery; harassment; not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible or relevant evidence.' Allen's separate statement explains why each of these objections lack merit. Afuyog did not file a responsive separate statement, nor does his opposition attempt to argue the merits of his objections.

Afuyog only argues that he sufficiently responded notwithstanding the objections. As such, Afuyog has not met his burden of justifying his objections.

All objections not based on privilege are therefore overruled. Objections based on privilege are not overruled, but any further responses shall either withdraw the objections or include sufficient information to decide whether such objections have merit. (See Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1129; see also Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 8:1086.1 [improper to assert objections based on privilege when there is no such responsive material].) Afuyog's opposition argues that he should not be required to provide any further responses to the 16.0 series because they were prematurely propounded in contravention of the 'Instructions to the Asking Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3059735 39 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: ALLEN VS TOLUCA APARTMENTS [IMAGED] 37-2023-00001672-CU-BC-CTL Party.' However, Afuyog did not object on that ground, and therefore any such objection was waived.

(See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 273 ['any and all objections are to be made at the earliest timely response'].) The Responses A party may also move to compel a further response if an 'answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1); see Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782–784.) 'Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.' (Id. at § 2030.220, subd. (a).) 'If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.' (Id. at subd.

(b).) '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.' (Id. at subd. (c).) The motion is granted as to FROG 1.1. No substantive response was provided to this interrogatory.

The motion is denied as to FROGs 2.1–2.5. The substantive portions of these responses are sufficient.

The motion is granted as to FROG 2.6. No substantive responsive was provided to subpart (b).

The motion is granted as to FROG 2.7. The response does not state why Afuyog lacks information about his own educational background and what efforts he made to try to obtain that information.

The motion is denied as to FROGs 2.8–2.13. The substantive portions of these responses are sufficient.

The motion is denied as to FROGs 4.1–4.2. The substantive portions of these responses are sufficient.

The motion is granted as to FROG 12.1. 'Not applicable' is not an appropriate response to an interrogatory seeking information about witnesses. If Afuyog meant 'none,' that must be made clear.

The motion is denied as to FROGs 12.2–12.6. The substantive portions of these responses are sufficient.

The motion is denied as to FROGs 13.1–13.2. The substantive portions of these responses are sufficient.

The motion is denied as to FROGs 14.1–14.2. The substantive portions of these responses are sufficient.

The motion is denied as to FROG 15.1. There was no answer on file at the time of the response or at the time this motion was filed, and therefore the substantive portion of this response is sufficient. (See Biles v. Exxon Mobile Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1328 [responding party has no affirmative duty to update answers].) The motion is denied as to FROG 16.1. The substantive portion of this response is sufficient.

The motion is granted as to FROG 16.2. No substantive response was provided to this interrogatory.

The motion is granted as to FROG 16.3. The response states that Afuyog does not claim anyone was injured, but that was not the call of the question. Afuyog must answer each subpart for each injury 'claimed by plaintiff.' Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3059735 39 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: ALLEN VS TOLUCA APARTMENTS [IMAGED] 37-2023-00001672-CU-BC-CTL The motion is granted as to FROGs 16.4–16.8. The responses state that Afuyog does not have 'personal knowledge' of Allen's healthcare providers/services or his damages, but the interrogatories do not require such knowledge. Afuyog must answer each subpart for each such matter as 'claimed by plaintiff.' The motion is denied as to FROG 16.9. The substantive portion of this response is sufficient.

The motion is granted as to FROG 16.10. The response states that Afuyog will produce text messages, but that is not a sufficient response to this interrogatory. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230 [an interrogatory may by answered by producing documents, but only if the response refers to section 2030.230, the documents contain all responsive information, and a written response would otherwise require the creation of a 'compilation, abstract, audit or summary' of the documents].) Sanctions As set forth above, Afuyog's objections lack merit. However, notwithstanding those objections, Afuyog provided substantive responses to many of the interrogatories at issue. As also set forth above, many of those substantive responses were sufficient. Under the circumstances, both parties acted with substantial justification, and the requests for sanctions by both parties are therefore denied.

Conclusion The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Afuyog shall provide further verified, code-compliant responses to all FROGs at issue. The further responses shall not contain any objections, except as stated above with respect to objections based on privilege. Afuyog shall also supplement the substantive portions of FROGs 1.1, 2.6–2.7, 12.1, 16.2–16.8, and 16.10. Afuyog is not required to supplement the substantive portions of FROGs 2.1–2.5, 2.8–2.13, 4.1–4.2, 12.2–12.6, 13.1–13.2, 14.1–14.2, 15.1, 16.1, and 16.9.

Both parties' requests for sanctions are denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3059735 39