Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 21SMCV01582, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01582    Hearing Date: January 20, 2023    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Simpkins, v. Siretskiy, et al.

CASE NO.:                21SMCV01582

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

HEARING DATE:   1/20/2023

Legal Standard

            In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad. “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP § 2017.010; see Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301.)

            Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220(a) requires that “[e]ach answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” Pursuant to section 2030.300, a party may move to compel further responses to a form interrogatory if the other party’s answer is “evasive or incomplete.” The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the interrogatories. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

The motion is timely per the written stipulation of the parties and the Court’s IDC order. (Moore Decl., Ex. B; see 12/9/22 Minute Order.)

Analysis

Plaintiff Simpkins (“MP”) filed three motions to compel further responses against Defendants. This motion specifically relates to Defendant Siretskiy Organization LLC’s (“RP”) responses to form interrogatories, set one (“FIs”).

On April 21, 2022, MP propounded three discovery requests (Requests to Admit, Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents) to RP. On August 4, 2022, RP served responses to the discovery, including responses to the FIs which were non-responsive, evasive and/or incomplete. The Court held an IDC on October 20 regarding the outstanding discovery. On October 31, 2022, counsel for RPs informed MP that he could not provide further responses since his client did not respond to counsel. (Moore Decl., Ex. C.) Notably, RP’s principal (Mr. Siretskiy) restricted counsel’s access to his company’s email and files.  MP provides that the following interrogatories are evasive/incomplete.

Interrogatory 15.1

“Identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings and for each: (a) state all facts upon which you base the denial or special or affirmative defense; (b) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (c) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.”

RP’s response provided no facts supporting any denials or affirmative defenses, and identified no persons, documents or other information requested. Thus, further response is required.

Interrogatory 17.1 re: Request for Admission 10 and 14

“Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the number of the request; (b) state all facts upon which you base your response; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.”

Likewise, RP’s response provided no facts supporting denials to RFAs nos. 10 and 14.

            RFA no. 10 requests that RP “ADMIT that YOU used at least a portion of the PAYMENT for YOUR own benefit.”  RP responded by simply denying that they “did not use Propounding Party’s investment funds that Propounding Party deposited with Responding Party on or about November 22, 2017, in the amount of $460,000 for its sole benefit.” This simply reiterates the denial and does not provide the facts upon which the denial is based, or any persons who have knowledge of such facts. Moreover, the response does not identify any documents that support that response, or provide that RP made a reasonably inquiry. (See CCP § 2033.220(c).) Thus, a further response is required.

            RFA no. 14 requests that RP “ADMIT that PLAINTIFF did not fail to take reasonable steps to minimize or prevent the damages PLAINTIFF claims to have suffered.” RP responded with a non-sequitur, “Propounding Party did not timely file all of her claims against Responding Party.” Like the response to no. 10, the remainder of the response does not provide the information requested, such as the persons with knowledge of the facts supporting the denial. Thus, a further response is required. 

SANCTIONS

Sanctions are mandatory. The Court must sanction any party that unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response, “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.” (See, e.g., CCP, § 2030.300(d).) MP’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the requested sum of $882.25 against the Siretskiy Organization LLC only. 

Further responses are ordered within ten days.