Judge: Michael Small, Case: 22STCV36317, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Case Number: 22STCV36317    Hearing Date: May 2, 2024    Dept: 57

This is an action for assault and battery. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleges as follows. When Plaintiff Robert J. Wood (“Plaintiff”) attempted to enter the R.V. belonging to his sister Shannon, at her invitation (FAC ¶¶ 9–12), two other people in the dwelling, including Alexandra Menchaca, attempted to deny him entry. (FAC ¶¶ 13–18.) When Plaintiff entered the R.V., Menchaca shot him in the arm, causing him injuries that required hospital treatment. (Complaint ¶¶ 18–25.)  Menchaca is now deceased.  Plaintiff sued Gerald Marcus, the personal representative of Menchaca’s Estate (“Defendant”).

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to form interrogatories No. 2.12, 2.13, 4.2, 12.1–12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 16.2–16.10, and special interrogatories No. 1, 2, 4–37 and 70–90.  The Court is granting the Plaintiff’s motion.  The information that Plaintiff is seeking in the interrogatories is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims or reasonably likely to lead the discovery of admissible evidence.  And Defendant has not furnished an adequate justification for his myriad objections to the interrogatories.  Defendant is ordered to provide to Plaintiff further responses to the interrogatories at issue by May 23, 2024.

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010(a).) The scope of what may be sought through interrogatories is broad.  The overarching provision of the Civil Discovery Act on the breadth of discovery states that “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  (Id. § 2017.010.)  If a propounding party is not satisfied with the response served by a responding party, the former may move the court to compel further interrogatory responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)  The propounding party must demonstrate that the responses were incomplete, inadequate or evasive, or that the responding party asserted objections that are either without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a)(1)–(3); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 403.)  The burden is on the nonmoving party to justify objections to interrogatories.  Coy v Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220.)

Plaintiff here seeks further responses to form interrogatories and special interrogatories. These interrogatories were served on December 6 and 9, 2023, and responses were served on February 12, 2024, pursuant to an agreed extension. (Price Decl. ¶¶ 7–12.)

The form interrogatories at issue -- 2.12, 2.13, 4.2, 12.1–12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 16.2–16.10 - sought information concerning Menchaca's mental state; her insurance; percipient witnesses to the incident and related statements, recordings, and photographs; and Defendant’s contentions regarding the authenticity of Plaintiff’s claimed injuries. (See Separate Statement.) Defendant responded to these interrogatories with objections based on relevance, attorney-client privilege and work product, and the status of discovery. (Separate Statement at pp. 2–25.) Defendant also incorporated prior supplemental responses to other form interrogatories served on September 22, 2023. (Ibid.)

The special interrogatories can be divided into groups by subject. Interrogatories No. 1, 2, and 4–37 sought facts supporting Defendant’s general denial, as it relates to particular allegations in the FAC. (Separate Statement at pp. 25–108.) Interrogatories No. 70–84 sought facts supporting Defendant’s affirmative defenses. (Separate Statement at pp. 111–146.) Interrogatories No. 85–90 sought information related to the assets contained in Defendant’s estate and creditors and payments being made therefrom. (Separate Statement at pp. 148–152.) Defendant responded to these interrogatories with objections and statements regarding the status of discovery, and responded only with objections to Interrogatories No. 85–90 based on privacy and relevance.

In opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant argues that the interrogatories were propounded in bad faith and solely to harass. (Opposition at p. 3.) He notes that the special interrogatories seek facts only in support of Defendant’s denial of even-numbered paragraphs in the FAC, including paragraphs that contain only innocuous or undisputed allegations, or that merely incorporate other paragraphs. (Opposition at pp. 3–6.) Defendant further argues that these form interrogatories are duplicative of prior form interrogatories that were served and responded to in September 2023. (Opposition at pp. Marcus Decl. ¶ 6.)

Defendant similarly argues that various form interrogatories are unrelated to this litigation, such as those asking whether Defendant is a corporation or whether any public agency has licensed Defendant’s business. (Opposition at pp. 6–7.) Defendant also argues that the separate statement included with the motion is defective because it concerns allegations and affirmative defenses, the text of which are not included in the body of the separate statement. (Opposition at pp. 7–8.) Defendant also takes issue with the boilerplate “reasons for compelling further response” that has been copied and pasted under each interrogatory at issue. (Opposition at pp. 8–9.) Defendant seeks $15,725.00 in sanctions from Plaintiff for 37 hours of attorney work. (Marcus Decl. ¶ 10.)

The Court has concluded that the Defendant’s position is not well-grounded 

Although Defendant points to prior form interrogatories directed to the same subject matter, he omits that he objected to each of these prior interrogatories on the grounds that they were served against him in his individual capacity, rather than his capacity as personal representative of Menchaca’s Estate. (Marcus Decl. Exh. 1.) Defendant cannot fairly complain of duplicative efforts  when the discovery at issue was prompted by his wholesale objection to a prior iteration of discovery.

Moreover, Defendant’s objections to the relevance of certain interrogatories is unsupported. If an interrogatory such as form interrogatory No. 2.13 asks Defendant, “Are you a corporation?”, Defendant may obviate the necessity of lengthy objections and redundant motion practice by responding, “No.” Similarly, if an interrogatory asks Defendant to state facts supporting his denial of a fact he now deems innocuous and not in dispute (despite his general denial), he may respond by stating that he does not in fact dispute the allegation. Defendant has instead elected sweeping objections and 37 hours of motion practice trying to defend them.

Defendant’s most substantive objection is not, in fact, that a great amount of the interrogatories are off-topic or inapplicable, but rather that the primary witnesses to the incident at issue were impaired at the time of the incident or are currently deceased and that therefore he cannot answer the interrogatories. (Marcus Decl. ¶ 2.) The Discovery Act provides a means for litigants to make clear when they are unable to answer an interrogatory:

If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220, subd. (c).)

Defendant has neither availed himself of this option in general nor responded with sufficient straightforwardness to differentiate between  those interrogatories to which he genuinely lacks information and those to which he simply he did not wish to respond. Responses to interrogatories must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220, subd. (a).) The responses here are not straightforward, and are indeed not differentiated by the allegation or affirmative defense at issue.

Defendant’s argument that the motion is procedurally defective is likewise unavailing.  Defendant complains that the separate statement in support of the motion does not include the text of the affirmative defenses or allegations at issue. (Opposition at p. 7.) But there is no requirement that the pleaded matter to which a discovery request pertains be included in a separate statement.  Such a statement need only incorporate additional discovery requests and responses, and only then “”[i]f the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request,” (CRC Rule 3.1345, subd. ((c)(5).) There is no requirement that a moving party needlessly lengthen a separate statement by the inclusion pleaded materials.

Defendant finally objects to Plaintiff’s use in the separate statement of copy-pasted justifications for the interrogatories, which he contends do not address his objections to the interrogatories. (Opposition at pp. 7–9.) This argument fails, however, for two reasons. First, it is not Plaintiff’s burden on a motion to compel further responses to rebut Defendant’s objections. It is rather Defendant’s burden to support those objections in opposition to the motion. Second, Defendant’s objection to boilerplate separate statement responses misses the mark,  because his discovery responses  themselves do not differ in substance depending on the particular allegation or affirmative defense at issue and are boilerplate.  

Because the Court is granting Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant’s request for the imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff is denied. 

Plaintiff’s notice of motion did not include a request for monetary sanctions against the Defendant.  At the very end of the memorandum in support of the motion, Plaintiff requests monetary  sanctions, albeit with no amount specified and with no information to support any amount of sanctions.   Because Plaintiff did not formally move for sanctions against Defendant and because the motion and memorandum do not furnish information related to the amount of sanctions, the Court has concluded that Plaintiff is not entitled to an order imposing monetary sanctions against Deendant.