Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 2020-01129890, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

3) Motion to Compel Productions

The unopposed Motion by Plaintiff Michael P. Farah (“Plaintiff”) to compel Defendant Mitchell Zogob (“Defendant” or “Zogob”) to provide further responses to form interrogatories as well as his verifications to same, and his verifications to his responses to requests for admission is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to special interrogatories as well as his verifications to same, is also GRANTED.

Finally, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to requests for production of documents, the production of responsive documents, as well as his verifications to same, is also GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to serve the further responses and verifications as set forth herein, within 30 days of service of the notice of ruling.

On 11/10/21, Plaintiff served the subject discovery on Defendant Zogob.  Defendant requested a 30-day extension to provide responses, which was granted.  Eventually after falling ill with Covid, Defendant provided unverified responses to the form interrogatories and requests for admission in February of 2022, and unverified responses to the special interrogatories and requests for production of documents on April 4, 2022.  Plaintiff met and conferred thereafter, but no further responses were provided. (See Vinci Declarations and subsequent amended declarations in support of motions.)

Interrogatories

A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories on the grounds that the answer is evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce documents under Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, and/or an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a).)  If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories.  (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Here, form Interrogatory Nos. 2.6 and 17.1 are at issue.

Form Interrogatory 2.6 asks Defendant to state: (a) the name, address, and telephone number of your present employer or place of self-employment; and (b) the name, address, dates of employment, job title, and nature of work for each employer or self-employment you have had from five years before the incident until today.

Plaintiff responded that he was self-employed and provided his address.  This is not complete, as it is not responsive to subd. (b) of the interrogatory.

Form Interrogatory 17.1 asks for all facts, witnesses and documents to support any request for admission response that is not an unqualified admission. 

Plaintiff responded, “Responses to Request for Admissions submitted separately.”

This is not responsive; Plaintiff must respond independently to this interrogatory.

With respect to the special interrogatories, Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to provide full and complete Answers to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 25, 28, 31, 34, 46, 52, 56, 60, 64, and 68, and that Defendant did not provide any answers to Special Interrogatories Nos. 86 through 202.

Nos. 1, 4, 7, 13, 25, 28, 31, 34, 46, 52, 56, 60, 64, and 68, ask Defendant to “IDENTIFY” various witnesses; the term “IDENTIFY” is defined to include providing the name, address, phone number, and account number, if applicable.

In response to these, Defendant provided only names, and thus did not fully answer the interrogatories.

In response to Nos. 5, and 6, which ask Defendant to state all facts and documents regarding his contention that “Plaintiff engaged in acts and courses of conduct which rendered Plaintiff in pari delicto,” Defendant stated in part that “Defendant, Mitchell Zogob, is not an attorney, to render a legal opinion on Plaintiff in pari delicto…”  This essentially is an objection, and Defendant has waived his objections by serving later responses.  Also, igiven this qualifying statement it does not appear the responses are fully responsive.

As a result, Plaintiff is ordered to serve further verified responses to the foregoing, as well as initial responses to Nos. 86-202.

The Court notes that Plaintiff also requests as part of this motion an order compelling Defendant to serve verifications to his responses to requests for production of documents.  This is duplicative of the motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents.  This portion of the request is therefore denied as moot.

Requests for Production of Documents

A CCP section 2031.010 demand may be used to obtain inspection, copying, testing or sampling of documents, tangible things, land, and electronically-stored information (ESI) in the possession, custody or control of another party.  These demands are limited to matters that are within the permissible scope of discovery (“relevant to subject matter,” etc.) and that are not protected by privilege, work product, right of privacy, etc. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010(a).

Where a response has been made, but the demanding party is not satisfied with it, the remedy is a motion to compel further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.)  This motion can be used to attack a response containing objections, or an agreement to comply that is incomplete, or a statement of inability to comply that is incomplete or evasive. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).)

Section 2031.310(b)(1) requires the moving papers to set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.  To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to show both: (1) relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the document would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and (2) specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial).  (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa.) (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2016) ¶ 8:1495.6.)

As with the interrogatories, Defendant served incomplete and unverified responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents on April 4, 2022.

Specifically, Defendant failed to provide any responses to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 9 through 123. 

As a result, Defendant is ordered to serve verifications to his responses and also to serve responses without objection to Nos. 9-123, and to produce any and all responsive documents.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.