Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 19SMCV00349, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

The Court generally uploads tentative rulings the morning of the hearing.  Because of that, the parties cannot submit on the tentative the night before and not appear.  However, if after reviewing the tentative ruling ALL COUNSEL submit, they should tell the Court's judicial assistant when checking in and the Court will endeavor to either not hear the case in light of the submission or, if the Court believes that a hearing is still needed for some other reason, then the Court will be inclined to give priority.

In some cases, tentative rulings may be given by email the morning of the hearing rather than on the tentative ruling site.  Please check your email if you have not seen the tentative.  The email is generally sent to the persons who have signed up for a remote hearing.

For those appearing in the courtroom, the Court will provide a hard copy of the tentative ruling. 

Case Number: 19SMCV00349    Hearing Date: August 9, 2023    Dept: R

The unopposed motion to compel is DENIED. 

Defendant seeks to compel plaintiff to respond to 510 special interrogatories.  Even in the absence of an opposition, the court must still ensure that the motion has merit.  Here, the sheer number of interrogatories is abusive on its face.  The Legislature has determined that the normal case requires only 35 special interrogatories.  Recognizing that a firm limit would lead to endless motion practice, the Legislature allowed for additional interrogatories to be propounded if accompanied by a declaration establishing that additional interrogatories are needed due to the complexity of the specific case.  And the practice has been for such declarations to be submitted routinely and rarely questioned.  The court will abide that common practice.  Accordingly, were there 50, or perhaps even 100, special interrogatories, the court would not be overly concerned.  But 510!  Really.

This case is a remodel gone wrong.  It is in that light that the court looks at the declaration.  Defendant contends that the Second Amended Complaint is poorly written, asserting that plaintiff holds a license but does not state what license is held.  And there are supposedly issues regarding timing and alter ego (which requires some additional interrogatories).  And plaintiff claims that there is an independent estimator who did work.  Those are all stated in the supplemental declaration by the defense.  And perhaps that justifies some additional special interrogatories beyond the standard 35.   But not an additional 475.  And this is not a case where there are 510 special interrogatories but if one looks at each defendant there are really a whole lot less.  No, there are 510 in the set. 

Plaintiff contends that these are really contention interrogatories.  They are not.  A contention interrogatory starts with “Do you contend that” after which is a potential contention (such as “Do you contend that you held a contractor’s license in California during all times relevant to this case?”).  Instead, these are interrogatories where defendant just marched through the complaint and asked for all documents, witnesses, and facts that support each allegation made. 

Plaintiff needs to have these interrogatories go through a mental process in which they are organized in a better way and where the number is reduced.  There are also form interrogatories that go to much of this.  And in some cases, an RFA or deposition may be better.  The point is that the court simply does not agree that the nature of this case requires 510 interrogatories.

The court just can’t stomach this many interrogatories, even though there was no opposition.