Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: Arora v. Excelbis Labs LLC, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Ritu Arora’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff Ritu Arora moves to compel defendant Excelbis Labs LLC to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 38, 41, 42, and 44 and Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 46, 47, 51, 55, 56, and 58.  Defendant served supplemental responses after plaintiff filed this motion.  In reply, plaintiff states defendant’s supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 13, 14, and 19 are deficient.  For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 13, 14, and 19 is granted.

Defendant’s supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 13, 14, and 19 do not answer the questions posed.  Defendant’s reference to other documents where plaintiff purportedly can obtain the answer to each of these interrogatories does not provide sufficient detail to permit plaintiff to ascertain the answer to each interrogatory.  See Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.230.  Nor has defendant demonstrated section 2030.230 applies to these interrogatories.  See id. (specification of documents constitute a sufficient answer where, inter alia, the burden or expense of preparing or making a compilation or summary would be substantially the same for the propounding and responding parties).  Defendant is ordered to provide further, verified, Code-compliant supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 13, 14, and 19 by August 15, 2022.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted.  Defendant Excelbis Labs LLC shall pay sanctions in the amount of $1,060 to plaintiff Ritu Arora by August 15, 2022.

Plaintiff to give notice. 

Plaintiff Ritu Arora’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Requests for Production

Plaintiff Ritu Arora moves to compel defendant Excelbis Labs LLC to provide a further response to Requests for Production (Set One) No. 32.  Request No. 32 seeks “all documents related to [defendant’s application for licensure by the California Department of Cannabis Control.”  Defendant served a supplemental response and agreed to produce certain responsive documents after plaintiff filed this motion.  Defendant agreed to produce “all data packages which comprise[ ] . . . the application of licensure.”  Defendant states this document production contains approximately 20,000 pages “for the various instruments and compliance tests and over 10 separate submissions.”  In reply, plaintiff states defendant’s supplemental response to Request No. 32 is deficient because the documents defendant agreed to produce “only constitute a portion of [the] materials within [defendant’s] possession, custody and control that are responsive to the request.”  For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to Request No. 32 is granted.

Defendant limited its supplemental response to Request No. 32 to “data packages” that comprise the application of licensure.  Defendant provides no explanation why its response should properly be limited to “data packages,” or what, if anything, defendant seeks to exclude from its production by limiting the production to “data packages.”  Defendant is ordered to provide a further, verified, Code-compliant supplemental response to Request No. 32 by August 15, 2022, and to produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to Request No. 32 by the same date.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted.  Defendant Excelbis Labs LLC shall pay sanctions in the amount of $1,060 to plaintiff Ritu Arora by August 15, 2022.

Plaintiff to give notice.