Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV24575, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24575    Hearing Date: November 6, 2023    Dept: 30

LUIS MEDINA LOPEZ vs SERJIO LUIS OLVERA, et al

Motion to Compel Further Responses of United Site Services
Motion to Compel Further Responses of Serjio Luis Olvera

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff's Motions to Compel Further Responses are granted. Each Defendant is to provide further responses within 20 days.  Requests for sanctions is denied. Moving party to give notice.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Luis Mendoza Lopez ("Plaintiff") moves to compel Defendants further [*4]  supplemental responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One). "If the propounding party, on receipt of a response to interrogatories, deems that (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is…incomplete…or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general, that party may move for an order compelling further response." (CCP §2030.300(a).)  Form Interrogatories (Set One) No. 17.1 seeks information related to Defendants' denials of RFAs. No. 17.1 seeks information related to Plaintiff's responses where it stated that it lacked sufficient information to admit or deny each request. On a motion to compel further responses, the responding party bears the burden of justifying its objections and answers. To the extent that the information requires an expert, and expert discovery has not commenced, the Code of Civil Procedure imposes a duty on responding party to make a reasonable investigation of the facts of those matters that it claims are not within its personal knowledge. Yet, if Defense is relying upon the Defendants' statement, in whole or in part, that must be disclosed.  The Court finds that Defendants fail to demonstrate how identification of the documents or information sought cannot be accomplished in order to provide complete responses. See, Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 294 states that a party has "no right to refuse to identify documents in response to interrogatories, even if they may properly refuse to produce them later, based upon a claim of privilege."  While Defendants have provided some information, they must provide direct answers based upon the information that they have, especially for subcategories (b) and (d).  The Court declines to award sanctions as the Court believes that the parties have each acted with substantial justification.