Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 21SMCV01582, Date: 2023-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01582    Hearing Date: March 3, 2023    Dept: M

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

CASE NO.:                21SMCV01582

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

HEARING DATE:   3/3/2023

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 CCP 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 form and special interrogatories. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Analysis

On April 21, 2022, Plaintiff Simpkins served Defendant Centerskioskone with Form Interrogatories - General Set One and Requests for Admission - Set One. (Moore Decl., p. 10, lines 6 – 9.) Following meet and confer efforts, as well as an informal discovery conference (IDC), counsel for Defendant agreed to provide supplemental responses by October 31, 2022. (Moore Decl., pg. 10, lines 22 – 26, Ex. B.) Two weeks later, counsel informed Plaintiff that he could not provide the further responses due to problems reaching his client. (Moore Decl., pg. 11, lines 2 – 4, Ex. C.) Plaintiff has received no further responses to the subject interrogatories.

Here, the Court agrees that the answers to the discovery are evasive/incomplete.  Interrogatory 15.1 requests that Defendant “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.”

Defendant provided the following: “Responding Party asserted several affirmative defenses in its answer to Propounding Party’s complaint simply to preserve the right to assert them later and thus as Responding Party has not yet had an opportunity to conduct its own discovery, this interrogatory is premature. Discovery continues and Responding Party reserves the right to supplement or amend this response to incorporate newly discovered facts.”   Defendant merely provided an evasive, non-response to no. 15.1. They provided no facts supporting any denials or affirmative defenses, and identified no persons beyond the parties as having any knowledge or any documents.

            Interrogatory 17.1, regarding Request for Admission 31 (“ADMIT that PLAINTIFF did not fail to take reasonable steps to minimize or prevent the damages PLAINTIFF claims to have suffered.”) requests “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; and (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.”

Defendant provided the following responses:

“b) Propounding Party did not timely file all of her claims against Responding Party.”

“c) Propounding Party and Responding Party, available through their respective counsel of record.”

“d) As of the date of this response, Responding party has not located any documents or communications that specifically discuss the facts set forth above.”

The response to (b) is facially non-responsive and evasive. This provides no facts supporting the denial for RFA 31. Consequently, further responses are required. The Court also notes that there is no statement of compliance regarding their inability to provide documents.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further is GRANTED.  Further responses are due 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).)

Plaintiff has incurred the sum of $1,109.75 in reasonable attorney's fees and costs in bringing this motion. The Court finds that this would be a reasonable sanction in light of the facts and Defendant’s evasive responses. Based on the representations of Plaintiff, it appears that only Defendant should be subject to sanctions, and not their counsel. Accordingly, sanctions are granted in the amount of $1,109.75 against Defendant Canterskioskone only.