Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 2021-01233360, Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling
1. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories
2. Motion to Compel Production
3. Motion to Compel Production
4. Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions
A. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, as to Defendant Bragg Investment Company Inc. (Bragg)
The Court grants the Motion by Plaintiff Anastacio Chavez’ (“Plaintiff”) to compel further responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One, Nos. 3, 6, 8, 11, and 14, as to Defendant Bragg Investment Company Inc. (“Bragg”). Defendant Bragg shall provide verified responses without objections within 20 days of this Order.
1. Legal Standard
Where responses have been timely served but are deemed deficient by the requesting party (e.g., because of objections or evasive responses), that party may move for an order compelling a further response. [CCP § 2033.290; see Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp. (1997) 56 CA4th 618, 636, 65 CR2d 532, 543.)
2. Merits
The Amended Further Response to each of these requests is as follows:
“This responding party cannot admit or deny this request at this time as reasonable inquiry concerning the subject matter has only recently commenced nor have any party depositions gone forward to date.”
In lieu of admitting or denying the RFA, a party may respond by claiming inability (lack of sufficient information) to admit or deny the matter stated in the request. [CCP § 2033.220(c)]
But a party responding in this manner must also state that a reasonable inquiry was made to obtain sufficient information: i.e., “a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” [CCP § 2033.220(c) (emphasis added)]
Defendant’s response is plainly deficient and not Code-compliant.
The Court notes that Defendant Bragg provided a supplemental response to No. 12 on June 6, 2022, after the Motion was filed and served, admitting liability for the accident. No further response is required.
The Court orders Defendant Bragg to pay Plaintiff $1,272.50 in sanctions within 30 days.
B. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, No. 17.1 as to Defendant Bragg
The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, No. 17.1 as it applies to Requests for Admission Nos. 3, 6, 8, 11, and 14, as to Defendant Bragg. Defendant shall provide verified further responses without objections within 20 days of this Order.
1. Legal Standard
Each answer in the response to interrogatories must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (CCP § 2030.220(a), (b).)
“Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 CA4th 64, 76; see CCP § 2023.010(f)—evasive response is ground for sanctions.)
Where an interrogatory asks for the names of all witnesses to a particular event then known to the responding party, a response omitting the name of a known witness could subject the adversary to unfair surprise at trial and therefore may result in an order excluding that witness' testimony. (See R & B Auto Ctr., Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2006) 140 CA4th 327, 356.)
A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories on the grounds that the answer is evasive or incomplete. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1).) 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.)
2. Merits
The court has ruled above that Defendant’s responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 3, 6, 8, 11, and 14 is deficient. Thus, to the extent the responses are not an unqualified admission, Defendant must provide further, Code-compliant, verified responses to form Interogatories, Set One, No. 17.1 as to these five RFAs without objections.
The Court orders Defendant Bragg to pay Plaintiff $672.50 in sanctions within 30 days.
C. Motions to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, as to Defendant Bragg and Defendant Jayce Borski (Borski)
The Court grants in part Plaintiffs’ Motions as set forth below. Defendants are ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, and all responsive documents as to the Requests delineated below within 20 days.
1. Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 requires a party responding to an inspection demand to respond with (1) a statement that it will comply, (2) a representation that it does not have the ability to comply, or (3) an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) An agreement to comply must be rather specific as to what is agreed to. It must state that the production and inspection will be allowed (in whole or in part); and that the documents or things in the demanded category that are in the responding party's possession, custody, or control will be produced. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)
On receipt of the response, the demanding party may move to compel further response if any of the following apply: (1) a statement of compliance is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete or evasive; (3) an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b).)
Absent a claim of privilege or attorney work product, the burden of showing good cause may be met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance. “If ‘good cause’ is shown by the moving party, the burden is then on the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) ¶ 8:1496, citing Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)
2. Merits re Bragg RFP Motion
At issue are Request Nos. 1, 2, 4-37, 47-48, 50, 94-95.
This Motion is granted only as to No. 2; it is DENIED as to the remainder of the Requests.
As to No. 1, in light of Defendant’s recent admission of liability, this request is not relevant and there is no good cause shown for production of the requested documents.
As to no. 2, Plaintiff has shown good cause and Defendant has not met its burden to justify any objections as to the operative insurance policies. The Motion is granted as to this request.
The Motion is denied as to No. 94 and 95; in light of Defendant’s recent admission of liability, these requests are not relevant and there is no good cause shown for production of the requested documents. Moreover, because the response to Special Interrogatory No. 8 (referenced in RFA 94) is no, the response to RFP No. 94 is sufficient.
Finally, Plaintiff’s Separate Statement indicates that no responses at all were served for No. 4-37, 47, 48, 50. And though Plaintiff admits that there were, in fact. no Request Nos. 10 and 29, Plaintiff inexplicably moves to compel further responses to them.
Defendant explains in opposition that, in addition to Plaintiff’s numbering error in its requests, Defendant misnumbered its responses. Rather that bringing the errors to the court’s attention and attempting to correct the error, e.g., in the manner suggested in Defendant’s briefing, Plaintiff’s Separate Statement makes it appear that there were no responses at all to these Requests.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Separate Statement is improper – and the Court agrees. Not only does it not include the mis-numbered responses (so that the Court would have to go look at each discovery response in the exhibits), but some of them reference other discovery (e.g., produce all documents that correspond with form interrogatory 3.1) without including the other request in the separate statement.
Sanctions are denied as to this Motion.
3. Merits re Borski RFP Motion
At issue are Nos. Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 19, 33, 34, 39, 40, 41, and 53.
The Motion is granted as to Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 33 and 34.
As to Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 33, and 34 Defendant indicates in its Further Response and/or Amended Further Response that it has no documents other than specifically identified documents, Exhibits G, J, K, and L.
The party to whom the CCP § 2031.010 demand is directed must respond separately to each item in the demand by one of the following:
A response agreeing to comply must state:
• That the production and inspection demanded will be allowed (in whole or in part); and
• That the documents or things in the demanded category that are in the responding party's possession, custody or control will be produced.
(CCP § 2031.220.)
A response stating inability to comply with the CCP § 2031.010 demand shall state the following:
• That a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to locate the item demanded; and
• The reason the party is unable to comply: e.g., the document:
— never existed; or
— has been lost or stolen; or
— has been destroyed; or
— is not in the possession, custody or control of the responding party, in which case, the response must state the name and address of anyone believed to have the document.
(CCP § 2031.230.)
However, if there are responsive documents, and Defendant has failed to justify any objections, then Defendant must indicate a Code-compliant agreement to comply.
Here, the Court finds that the wording of the responses to Nos 5, 6, 8, 9, 12 are not Code-complaint and the responses create doubt about whether other responsive documents exist.
As to Nos. 33 and 34, the responses are not Code-compliant.
As to No. 13, in light of the recent admission of liability for the accident, this is not relevant and there is no showing of good cause for this request.
As to No. 19, the court finds that Plaintiff has not shown good cause for all documents relating to Defendant’s employment after the accident. Thus, as to No. 19, the Motion is denied.
Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown good cause for a further response to Nos. 39, 40, 21, and 53 because the corresponding Form Interrogatories indicate that there are no documents. Thus, the Motion is denied as to Nos. 39, 40, 21, and 53.
The Court orders Defendant Borski to pay Plaintiff $972.50 in sanctions within 30 days.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.