Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV08403, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV08403    Hearing Date: April 18, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiffs Stephanie Heraldez and Carlos Heraldez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Andrew London (“London”), Brian Geurts (“Brian”), and Carrie Geurts (“Carrie”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  The complaint alleges claims for motor vehicle and general negligence.

On January 18, 2023, Plaintiffs each served Defendant with special interrogatories, set one, which each included 71 special interrogatories for a total of 142 special interrogatories served on Brian.

At this time, Brian moves for a protective order providing that Brian need not answer the special interrogatories served on him, or limiting the number of interrogatories to which he must respond.  Plaintiffs oppose the motion, and Brian filed a reply. 

Brian asserts that this action concerns a garden variety auto accident case, and that 142 total special interrogatories are not warranted in this matter.  Brian states that he has informed Plaintiffs that he was not present during the subject accident and that fault would be admitted.  Brian contends that the special interrogatories propounded on him are excessive, as there is nothing complex about this matter. 

In opposition, Plaintiffs provide that per the Traffic Collision Report regarding the accident, Brian and Carrie were the registered owners of the vehicle involved in the incident.  Plaintiffs state that each set of their special interrogatories are identical, and that there is a lot of information Plaintiffs must gather from Brian.  Plaintiffs contend that the requests seek information about Brian, London, the passenger in the vehicle, and the accident. 

In reply, Brian contends that Plaintiffs concede this action does not involve complex issues, and that the special interrogatories served on Brian are duplicative. 

2. Motion for Protective Order

CCP §2030.030 limits the number of interrogatories that can be propounded to 35.  CCP § 2030.040 permits a party to propound more than 35 special interrogatories with a declaration of necessity.  CCP § 2030.040(a) states: Section 2030.050 may propound a greater number of specially prepared interrogatories to another party if this greater number is warranted because of any of the following:

(1) The complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case.

(2) The financial burden on a party entailed in conducting the discovery by oral deposition.

(3) The expedience of using this method of discovery to provide to the responding party the opportunity to conduct an inquiry, investigation, or search of files or records to supply the information sought.

CCP § 2030.090(b)(2) permits a party receiving interrogatories in excess of 35 to move for a protective order limiting the interrogatories to 35.  A motion for protective order can be used to challenge a “declaration of necessity,” which is required to justify more than 35 interrogatories (under CCP § 2030.050.  (See CCP § 2030.090(b)(2).)  The motion for protective order must be accompanied by a declaration showing the moving party made a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues outside of court.  (CCP § 2030.090(a).)  Where more than 35 specially prepared interrogatories have been served with a “declaration of necessity,” and the responding party seeks a protective order, the burden is on the propounding party to prove the number of questions is justified.  (CCP § 2030.040(b).)

The motion for protective order effectively controverts the propounding party's “declaration of necessity” and places the burden on the propounding party to justify more than 35 questions: “If the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted, the propounding party shall have the burden of justifying the number of these interrogatories.”  (CCP § 2030.040(b).)  Such order may be granted on the ground “(t)hat, contrary to the representations made (in the declaration of necessity) … the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted.”  (CCP § 2030.090(b)(2); see People v. Sarpas (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1552-53.) 

Here, Plaintiffs do not argue this matter is so complex as to justify more than 35 special interrogatories.  Further, Plaintiffs do not dispute that Brian informed them fault for the accident would be admitted, and Plaintiffs themselves acknowledge that each set of their special interrogatories are identical.  Plaintiffs primarily argue that the special interrogatories are necessary to obtain basic information.  However, Plaintiffs fail to articulate why 142 total special interrogatories are necessary to obtain basic information from Brian.  Furthermore, Plaintiffs do not provide any evidence showing that extensive or costly depositions will be required if the excess interrogatories are not answered.  Moreover, Plaintiffs did not go through the propounded special interrogatories to show why each one is necessary to this action.  Plaintiffs’ opposition falls short of meeting the burden to justify propounding special interrogatories in excess of 35. 

Defendant Brian’s motion for a protective order is granted.  Brian is to respond to only numbers 1-35 of each of the special interrogatories, sets one, within twenty (20) days.  Defendant is not required to respond to the remaining special interrogatories.   

CCP § 2030.090(d) mandates imposition of sanctions in favor of the party who prevails on this motion unless the opposing party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances render imposition of sanctions unjust.

Here, Brian requests sanctions in the amount of $502.11.  The request is reasonable and supported by defense counsel’s declaration.  (Mot. Freed Decl. ¶ 8.)  Sanctions are sought against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ attorney of record.  However, Brian does not describe any conduct by Plaintiffs warranting sanctions against them directly.  Rather, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s conduct in serving the subject interrogatories necessitated the motion.  Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff’s counsel of record only.  Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to Brian, by and through counsel, in the total amount of $502.11 within twenty (20) days.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 18^th day of April 2023