Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00006014-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 02, 2023

11/03/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other Real Property Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00006014-CU-OR-CTL SOMO VS BAZZI [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiffs Adel Somo and Muntaha Somo's motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories from Defendants Manuel Bazzi and Iskra Bazzi are DENIED.

Plaintiff seeks further responses from Defendants to form interrogatories ('FROG') No. 15.1, which asks the facts, witnesses, and documents upon which Defendants bases their affirmative defenses and denials. Defendants contend they answered the interrogatory to the best of their ability at this stage of the case, and that any additional information would infringe on the attorney work-product privilege. The court agrees.

Defendants have sufficiently 'identified' their affirmative defenses and denials by specifying that their responses are applicable to all denials and affirmative defenses raised in their Answer to the complaint.

Defendants then set forth (albeit in narrative form) all of the facts they believe are relevant to their defense. In other words, Defendants have provided the facts they will seek to prove and which they believe will support their defense. To the extent Plaintiffs seek to have Defendants explain their assessment of the legal significance of these facts, the request violates the attorney work-produce privilege. Likewise, to the extent Plaintiffs seek to have Defendants explain how they intend to prove each of the listed facts, the request violates the attorney work-produce privilege.

Defendants also listed the persons with knowledge of the described facts. Although it is true that Defendants did not include addresses and telephone numbers for these persons, it is not subject to reasonable dispute that Plaintiffs already have such information, given who was identified (Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Habib Ibrahim, the person from whom Plaintiffs purchased the property). Defendants' responses regarding documents (that they will be or have already been produced) are also sufficient.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion to compel is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3009833  9