Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV00199, Date: 2024-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV00199    Hearing Date: July 10, 2024    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Carlos Mendoza v. Alejandro Gomez 

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions and further DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions. 

              Defendant is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order. 

BACKGROUND 

This is a motor vehicle personal injury action. On January 19, 2024, plaintiff Carlos Mendoza (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Alejandro Gomez (Defendant) and Does 1-10, alleging a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence. 

On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed motions to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents. On June 26, 2024, Defendant opposed the motions. On July 2, Plaintiff replied. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Interrogatories

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(a) provides that 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.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d) further provides that “[t]he 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).) 

Requests for Production of Documents

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(a) provides that on receipt of a response to a request for production of documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:
(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. 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(h) further provides that “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 further response to a demand, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

DISCUSSION 

Meet and Confer 

A motion to compel further responses requires the parties to meet and confer before bringing such a motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) Counsel for Plaintiff provided a declaration indicating Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer. (Berjis Decl., ¶ 9.) Unable to resolve their disagreement, the parties proceeded to an Informal Discovery Conference on May 1, 2024. (Minute Order (5/1/24).) At the IDC, pursuant to the agreement of counsel, the Court ordered Defendant to serve supplemental responses by May 22, 2024. (Ibid.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s meet-and-confer efforts satisfactory.  

            Analysis 

Plaintiff propounded his first sets of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents on February 8, 2024. (Berjis Decl., ¶ 3.) Despite Defendant’s request for a three-week extension, Plaintiff granted Defendant a two-week extension to respond. (Id., ¶¶ 4, 5.) On March 28, 2024, the day that Defendant’s responses were due, Defendant requested another extension. (Id., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff refused because Defendant did not provide any explanation as to why another extension was needed. (Id., ¶ 7.) That same day, Defendant served responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents. (Id., ¶ 8.) Defendant objected to every single request and interrogatory, except Form Interrogatory No. 1.1. (Ibid.) On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff moved to compel further responses. 

On June 26, 2024, Defendant filed oppositions. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s motions are now moot because Defendant served further responses on June 24, 2024. (Rabbani Decl., Exh. A, Proof of Service.) Plaintiff’s counsel, in reply, stated that they never received the further responses. Instead, Defendant’s further responses were only made available because they were attached to Defendant’s oppositions. 

Plaintiff states that some of the responses that Defendant ultimately provided are sufficient, but others remain inadequate. Plaintiff maintains his request for an order compelling Defendant’s further responses to: Request for Production of Documents and Things Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 43; Special Interrogatories Nos. 5, 8, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, and 47; and Form Interrogatories Nos. 2.3(b), 2.4, 2.5(b) and (c), 2.6, 2.7(d), 7.1, 12.5, 12.6, 14.1, 20.2(a), (c), (e), (f) and (g), 20.5, 20.8(a), (b) and (c), and 20.9. 

A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See, e.g., CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).) Plaintiff has not identified why further responses should be required of Defendant. In his moving papers, Plaintiff merely stated in a conclusory manner that “the documents sought will not only help evaluate Plaintiff’s case, but it is most certainly necessary in facilitating a settlement in this matter.” (RPD Motion, 8:3-4.) In reply, the only reason Plaintiff provided for granting the motions is that “Defendant’s responses are not in substantial compliance”. (RPD Reply, 4:12.) This falls short of the “specific facts” standard. Further, there is no separate statement identifying the particular responses and reasons for compelling further responses. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions. 

The Court further DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions. Based on the declarations of Elham R. Rabbani, the Court finds that given the circumstances regarding the unavailability of attorneys, and given the early stage of this case and the lack of cooperation in granting the requested extensions, that the imposition of monetary sanctions would be unjust. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions and further DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions. 

              Defendant is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.