Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 24PSCV00421, Date: 2025-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV00421, Date: 2025-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV00421 Hearing Date: January 16, 2025 Dept: 6

CASE NAME: Vivian Graue-Allen v. Damaris Santos, et al.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, to Defendant Damaris Santos

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Vivian Graue-Allen’s motion to compel further responses. Defendant Damaris Santos must serve a complete, verified, and code-compliant supplemental response, without objection, to Form Interrogatory Number 15.1 within 15 days of the Court’s order. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.

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

BACKGROUND

This action is a corporate dispute. On September 21, 2023, plaintiff Vivian Graue-Allen (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Damaris Santos (Santos), Passage Enterprises Incorporated, and Does 1 through 20, alleging causes of action for involuntary dissolution of corporation, accounting, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and elder abuse.

On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff moved to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, against Defendant Santos. On October 28, 2024, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference in which Santos agreed to serve complete, verified, and code-compliant supplemental responses to Form Interrogatory Number 15, by November 1, 2024. The motion is unopposed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (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, subdivision (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).)

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

The Court finds the parties’ efforts to meet and confer sufficient. (Minute Order (10/28/24).)

Analysis

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory Number 15.1 on the grounds that Defendant Santos failed to provide a complete response, and instead interposed improper objections, such as vague, ambiguous, and seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff contends the information sought is critical to ascertain the validity of any of Santos’ affirmative defenses. Plaintiff also contends Santos’ response is non-responsive and evasive.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s motion well taken. Form Interrogatory Number 15.1 is by definition a standard form discovery request promulgated by the Judicial Council of California and is intended to obtain information from the defendant to vet the validity of any affirmative defenses the defendant may be asserting, and there is nothing vague or ambiguous about it. (See Motion, Ex. 2.) If any requested facts fall within the scope of the attorney-client privilege, Santos properly asserted that objection and not need disclose any information within its scope. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.240, subd. (b); see also Hernandez v. Superior Ct. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 293 [privilege log unnecessary for privilege objections in response to interrogatories].)

Santos’ objections regarding information that has not yet been discovered is unavailing, as Santos is not required to opine on things beyond Santos’ personal knowledge. “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, subd. (c); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 406 [same].)

The Court further construes Santos’ lack of opposition to this motion as a tacit admission that Plaintiff’s arguments are meritorious. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion, "it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes" that ground].) Santos’ lack of opposition also indicates a failure to comply with the parties’ agreement at the Informal Discovery Conference. (See Minute Order (10/28/24).)

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel further responses, and orders Santos to serve a complete, verified, and code-compliant supplemental response, without objection, to Form Interrogatory Number 15.1 within 15 days of the Court’s order.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions. “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) Plaintiff’s notice of motion fails to provide this information. (Motion, 1:20-2:19.)

CONCLUSION

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