Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV03428, Date: 2024-07-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV03428 Hearing Date: July 15, 2024 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 7/15/24
Case 23CHCV03428
MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
(Special
Interrogatories, Set 1)
Motion filed on 4/3/24.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Kenneth Armstrong
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Vallarta
Food Enterprises, Inc.
NOTICE: ok
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order
compelling Defendant Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc. to provide further
responses to Special Interrogatories, Set 1, numbers 33-35. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions
against Vallarta and its attorneys of record, Homan, Stone & Rossi, in the amount of
$410.00.
RULING: The motion is granted.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of an incident that occurred on
8/23/23 when Plaintiff Kenneth Armstrong (Plaintiff) slipped and fell on water
at a Vallarta store. Plaintiff alleges
that he suffered a concussion and other injuries as a result of the
incident.
On 11/7/23, Plaintiff filed this action against 13820
Foothill, LLC and Does 1-50 for: (1) Negligence and (2) Premises
Liability. On 12/12/23, Plaintiff named
Vallarta in place of Doe 1. On 1/10/24, Gonzalez
Food Enterprises, Inc., erroneously sued and served as Vallarta Food
Enterprises, Inc. as Doe 1 (Vallarta) filed an answer to the complaint.
On 1/17/24, Plaintiff served Vallarta with Special
Interrogatories, Set 1. (Kilday Decl.,
Ex.1). On 2/16/24, Vallarta
electronically served Plaintiff with responses to the interrogatories. (Id., Ex.2). On 3/29/24, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer
correspondence and contacted Vallarta’s attorneys regarding the deficient
discovery responses. (Id., Ex.5). However, Vallarta’s counsel failed to
respond. (Id. ¶¶6-7). Thereafter, Plaintiff’s counsel requested
that Vallarta extend the time for Plaintiff to file a motion to compel further
responses to 4/30/24. (Id. ¶8,
Ex.4). Vallarta’s counsel did not
respond to the request for an extension.
(Id. ¶¶9-13).
Therefore, on 4/3/24, Plaintiff filed and served the
instant motion seeking an order compelling Vallarta to provide further
responses to Special Interrogatories, Set 1, numbers 33-35. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions
against Vallarta and its attorneys of record, Homan, Stone & Rossi, in the
amount of $410.00. Vallarta has not
opposed or otherwise responded to the motion.
ANALYSIS
Generally, a party may obtain discovery regarding any
unprivileged matter that is relevant to the subject matter of the action, if
the matter is admissible or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. See
CCP 2017.010.
A party may move to compel further responses to
interrogatories, if it deems an answer to be evasive or incomplete or an
objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. See CCP 2030.300(a)(1), (3). The instant motion is timely as it was filed
and served within 45 days plus 2 court days for the electronic service of the
responses. See CCP 2030.300(c);
CCP 1010.6(a)(3)(B).
Here, the subject special interrogatories seek
information relating to other similar falls or injuries at Vallarta’s property
for the 5 years preceding the incident which is the subject of this
action. Vallarta has responded to the
interrogatories with objections claiming that the questions are overbroad,
vague, ambiguous and irrelevant. Vallarta
has failed to meet its burden of justifying its objections. See Fairmont Insurance Co.
(2000) 22 C4th 245, 255. The Court finds
the information sought in Special Interrogatories 33, 34, 35 to be relevant to
the issues in this case. Additionally,
the interrogatories are not overbroad, vague or ambiguous as they are limited
in time (5 years before the subject incident) and scope (similar occurrence).
Plaintiff is entitled to sanctions against Vallarta and
its counsel, Homan, Stone & Rossi, in the amount of $410.00 for their
failure to comply with their discovery obligations. CCP 2030.300(d).
CONCLUSION
The motion is granted.
Further responses are due and sanctions are payable within 30 days.