Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV33916, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33916    Hearing Date: August 15, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion to Compel Further Response to Form Interrogatory and for Costs Incurred, Including Reasonable Attorney Fees Against Plaintiff

Moving Party:  Defendant Spot Service Station LLC

Resp. Party:    Plaintiff Antonio Fernandez

The FROGs Motion is DENIED.

The Requests for Sanctions are DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

        On October 20, 2022, Plaintiff Antonio Fernandez filed his Complaint against Defendants Spot Service Station LLC and J S J EZ Liquor Inc. on causes of action of violating the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Disabled Persons Act.

        On January 10, 2023, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office entered default on Defendant J S J EZ Liquor Inc.

        On January 31, 2023, Defendant Spot Service Station LLC filed its Answer to the Complaint.

        On July 20, 2023, Defendant Spot Service Station LLC (“Defendant”) filed its Motion to Compel Further Response to Form Interrogatory and for Costs Incurred, Including Reasonable Attorney Fees (“FROGs Motion”). Defendant concurrently filed a Separate Statement.

        On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Opposition. Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Sasha Ramos; and (2) Index of Exhibits. The Opposition includes a Request for Sanctions.

        On August 4, 2023, Defendant filed its Notice of Errata to the FROGs Motion.

        On August 4, 2023, Defendant filed its Reply.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Legal Standard

On receipt of a response to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and/or demand requests, the propounding and/or demanding party “may move for an order compelling further response” if: (1) the response is evasive or incomplete; (2) the representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) the objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a).)

The court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further interrogatories and/or a motion to compel further production of documents, unless the Court finds that the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).)

II.        Discussion

A.      Discovery

Defendant moves the Court to compel Plaintiff to provide a further response to Form Interrogatory (“FROG”) Number 11.1. (FROGs Motion, p. 6:2–15.) Defendant argues that the initial response is incomplete and without merit. (Ibid.) Defendant later clarifies in its Reply that it is seeking the incident date and incident time for each of the prior cases that fall under FROG No. 11.1. (Reply, p. 8:3–4.)

Plaintiff opposes the FROGs Motion, arguing: (1) that he has responded as fully and completely as possible to this FROG; (2) that FROG No. 11.1 is not relevant to this action; (3) that FROG No. 11.1 is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (4) that FROG No. 11.1 is unduly burdensome. (Opposition, pp. 2:7–8, 4:8–10, 5:19–21, 7:24.)

FROG No. 11.1 requires, among other things, the date, time, place, and location of each incident giving rise to the action, claim, or demand for compensation of personal injuries in the past 10 years. However, based on the information provided to the Court by the Parties, it appears that Plaintiff has not provided all of that information and that Plaintiff has only provided information since 2018. (Index of Exhibits, Exhs. D, F.)

        All FROGs are approved by the Judicial Council. Except for exceptional situations, they are not burdensome. Plaintiff has filed more than 700 ADA cases since 2018. As professionals in this area of the law, Plaintiff’s Counsel should be aware of what information is required by the FROGs and keep that information at hand. Thus, it would not be unduly burdensome here for Plaintiff to provide that information.

        However, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that FROG No. 11.1 is irrelevant to this action. According to the allegations made in the Complaint, this case is not about personal injuries; it is about whether Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief and statutory damages based on his allegations that Defendant had paths of travel in its store of less than 36 inches and a ramp with a slope greater than 10%. FROG No. 11.1 is about personal injuries, which means it is irrelevant here.

        The Court DENIES the Motion.

B.      Sanctions

Both Parties request monetary sanctions. The Court DENIES the Requests for Sanctions.

III.     Conclusion

The FROGs Motion is DENIED.

The Requests for Sanctions are DENIED.