Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 23CHCV02925, Date: 2024-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV02925, Date: 2024-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV02925 Hearing Date: November 1, 2024 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 11/1/24 TRIAL DATE: 2/2/26

Case #23CHCV02925

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Special Interrogatories, Set 2)

Motion filed on 7/30/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Ofer Aliasi

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Roger George Salah

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Roger George Salah to provide further verified responses without objection to Special Interrogatories, Set 2, Nos. 43, 60-99 and 103-105 within 20 days.

RULING: The motion is denied.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of a motor vehicle versus motorcycle accident that occurred on 6/4/23 in Encino, California. Plaintiff Ofer Aliasi (Plaintiff) was traveling eastbound on Ventura Blvd. on a motorcycle and Defendant was traveling westbound in a sedan. Plaintiff and Defendant collided while Defendant was making a left turn into a car wash. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff’s left leg was amputated below the knee. The parties dispute liability with Defendant claiming that Plaintiff’s excessive speed was a significant factor in causing the accident and Plaintiff’s injuries. On 9/28/23, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant alleging causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence. On 11/16/23, Defendant answered the complaint.

On 4/4/24, Plaintiff electronically served Special Interrogatories, Set 2, on Defendant making responses due on 5/7/24. (Ayvazyan Decl., Ex.1 – Although the declaration indicates that is the declaration attorney Khachatur Chris Ayvayan, the printed name below the signature line indicates that it was signed by attorney Greg Yagubyan and the actual signature is illegible. Additionally, none of the exhibits referenced in the motion or declaration are attached thereto as claimed.). Pursuant to Defendant’s request, Plaintiff extended the due date for responses to 5/14/24. (Ayvazyan Decl.). On 5/13/24, Defendant served responses which Plaintiff deemed to be improper and incomplete. (Ayvazyan Decl., Ex.2). On 5/24/24, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant’s counsel requesting further responses. (Id, Ex.3). On 6/24/24, Defendant responded to the meet and confer letter indicating that no further responses to the subject Special Interrogatories would be provided. (Id., Ex.4).

The parties agreed that the deadline to bring a motion to compel further responses was extended to 7/23/24. (Yagubyan Reply Decl., Ex.C). On 7/30/24, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant to provide further verified responses without objection to Special Interrogatories, Set 2, Nos. 43, 60-99 and 103-105 within 20 days. The motion was not filed and served until 7/30/24 due to the ransomware attack experienced the Los Angeles Superior Court. (See Yagubyan (second) Decl. attached to motion). Defendant has opposed the motion and Plaintiff has filed a reply to the opposition.

ANALYSIS

Defendant does not dispute the chronology of the service of the discovery, the responses thereto and the extension to bring this motion. (See Opposition, generally). Additionally, the Court has the text of the interrogatories and responses thereto from the separate statements filed by the parties. Further, any exhibits relied on by the Court were provided with the reply. As such, despite the issues noted above with the first declaration attached to the motion and the failure to include the exhibits, the Court will rule on the merits of the motion.

CCP 2030.300(a) provides:

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

The Court finds that Plaintiff adequately met and conferred before filing the instant motion as Defendant’s 6/24/24 response to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter indicated that Defendant was standing by his responses/objections to the subject interrogatories. (See Reply Yagubyan Decl., Ex.B, p.2 (pdf 16)); CCP 2030.300(b).

CCP 2030.010(b) provides:

“An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.”

However, contention interrogatories cannot be used to require a layperson to provide answers to scientific matters on which expert testimony will be required at trial. See Bockrath (1999) 21 C4th 71, 84.

All of the interrogatories at issue seemingly improperly presume that Defendant is making certain contentions. Special Interrogatory 43 asks Defendant what injuries Defendant contends Plaintiff sustained as a result of the incident. Plaintiff seems to argue that it is obvious that he lost his left foot as a result of the collision; therefore, Defendant should be able to respond to this interrogatory. However, the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries may require expert opinion on scientific matter. As such, Defendant properly objected to the question. See Bockrath, supra.

Special Interrogatories 60-99 presume that Defendant is making certain contentions regarding Plaintiff’s claimed injuries, treatment, cost of treatment, loss of earnings and other damages. For example, Special Interrogatory 61 asks Defendant what healthcare services Defendant contends Plaintiff needed as a result of the incident but failed to receive? Plaintiff does not cite to anything (i.e., Defendant’s answer) to establish that Defendant is making such a contention. Nor does Plaintiff preface this interrogatory by asking whether Defendant actually contends that Plaintiff needed healthcare services that were not provided. Similarly, Special Interrogatory 74 asks Defendant to describe all healthcare services provided to Plaintiff by Vogue Prosthetic Orthotic Center as a result of the incident which Defendant contends were not reasonably necessary and Special Interrogatory 80 asks Defendant to describe the future general damages that Defendant contends Plaintiff is reasonably certain to suffer as a result of the incident. Again, Plaintiff fails to establish that Defendant is making such contentions.

Even if Defendant is making the contentions raised in Special Interrogatories 60-99, responses to these interrogatories require answers to matter on which expert testimony will be required at trial. As such, Defendant’s objections are proper. See Bockrath, supra.

Special Interrogatory 103 asks Defendant to state all facts to support Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff has failed to mitigate damages resulting from the incident and Special Interrogatories 104 and 105 ask Defendant to identify persons with knowledge of facts to support the contention and to identify documents to support the contention. Again, Plaintiff fails to identify where Defendant makes such a contention or ask whether Defendant is making such a contention. From the reply, it appears that Plaintiff bases these interrogatories on Defendant’s answer to the complaint. However, a response to this interrogatory also requires answers to matter on which expert testimony will be required at trial making Defendant’s objections meritorious. See Bockrath, supra.

CONCLUSION

The motion is denied.

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to electronically bookmark the exhibits attached to the reply in violation of CRC 3.1110(f)(4). Counsel for the parties are warned that failure to comply with this rule in the future may result in matters being continued so that papers can be resubmitted in compliance with the rule, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.