Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 21SMCV01582, Date: 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01582    Hearing Date: January 27, 2023    Dept: M

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

CASE NO.:                21SMCV01582

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

HEARING DATE:   1/26/2023

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.)

Analysis

Plaintiff Simpkins (hereinafter, the moving part or MP) filed three motions to compel further responses against Defendants. This motion specifically relates to Defendant Siretskiy Real Estate Inc.’s (the responding party or 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) on 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, 2022, regarding the outstanding discovery.

On October 31, 2022, counsel for RP informed MP that he could not provide further responses since his client did not respond to counsel. (Moore Decl., Ex. C.)  The Court agrees that the cited interrogatories are evasive and/or 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 responses are required.

Interrogatory 17.1 (re: Request for Admission 13)

“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.”

            RFA no. 13 request that RP “ADMIT that YOU remain in breach of the $50,000 NOTE as of February 24, 2022.” RP provided the following response to section (d):

“d) Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this Discovery Request. Discovery continues and Responding Party reserves the right to supplement or amend this response to incorporate newly discovered facts.”

RP commits to producing documents, but fails to identify any documents, or give the relevant persons/addresses/phone numbers. The response does not provide the information requested. Thus, further responses are required.   

For this reason, further responses are ordered within 10 days.

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 RP Siretskiy Real Estate Inc. only.  Payable within 30 days.