Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 21STCV03788, Date: 2023-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV03788    Hearing Date: January 23, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant US Storage Centers, Inc.’s, motion to compel Plaintiff Wesley Robbins to provide further responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses within 20 days.

Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff is denied.

Defendant US Storage Centers, Inc. (“USSC”) (“Defendant”), moves to compel Plaintiff Wesley Robbins (“Robbins”) (“Plaintiff”) to provide further responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (“FROG”) (Set One).  (Notice of Motion, pg. 1.)  Defendant also requests an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $2,551.85.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 1.)

Background

Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in the instant matter on January 29, 2021, and the first amended complaint (“FAC”) on January 14, 2022 and his operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) on November 14, 2022.  The SAC alleges fifteen causes of action related to civil conspiracy involving multiple defendants, including Defendant.  On February 8, 2022, Defendant served FROG on Plaintiff, with responses initially due on or before March 15, 2022.  (Motion, Exh. A.)  On March 4, 2022, Plaintiff requested a 60-day extension to respond to discovery, and Defendant instead agreed to a 30-day extension, making Plaintiff’s responses due on or before April 8, 2022.  (Motion, Exh. B.)  On April 6, 2022, Defendant received Plaintiff’s FROG responses via fax.  (Decl. of Wright ¶4.)  Defendant declares it attempted to facilitate multiple meet-and-confers with Plaintiff to address deficiencies in his FROG responses.  (Decl. of Wright ¶¶6-7, Exhs. D, E.)

           Defendant filed the instant motion on May 24, 2022.  Plaintiff filed his opposition on June 7, 2022.  Defendant filed its reply on January 13, 2023. 

Meet and Confer

Motions to compel further responses must always be accompanied by meet-and confer-declarations per C.C.P. §2016.040 demonstrating a “reasonable and good faith attempt an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”  (C.C.P. §§2030.300(b), 2031.310(b)(2).)

Defendant’s counsel declares she sent an email to Plaintiff to meet and confer letter on May 20, 2022.  (Decl. of Wright ¶6, Exh. D.)  Defendant’s counsel declares she called Plaintiff on May 23, 2022, in a final attempt to meet and confer, and left a voicemail, but Plaintiff did not respond.  (Decl. of Wright ¶7, Exh. E.)  Defendant’s counsel demonstrated she made sufficient meet and confer efforts prior to filing the instant motion.    

FROG Series 2.0, Nos. 2.3-2.4

These interrogatories ask: (2.3) At the time of the INCIDENT, did you have a driver’s license? If so state: (a) The state or other issuing entity; (b) The license number and type; (c) The date of issuance; and (d) All restrictions; (2.4) At the time of the INCIDENT, did you have any other permit or license for the operation of a motor vehicle? If so, state: (a) the state or other issuing entity; (b) the license number and type; (c) the date of issuance; and (d) all restrictions.  (Motion SS, pgs. 5-6.)

In his initial response, Plaintiff objected to answering these interrogatories as vague and ambiguous because the propounding party did not specify the “Incident.”  (Motion SS, pgs. 2, 5.)

Defendant argues Plaintiff has not objected that this interrogatory is irrelevant and has thus waived that potential objection.  (C.C.P. §2030.290(a).) Additionally, “In the context of discovery, evidence is ‘relevant’ if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.”  (TBG Insurance Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448-449; Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)

Plaintiff argues the FROGs were silent as to what the “incident” consisted of, and as such, Plaintiff was entitled to pass on all FROGS that addressed the “incident.”  (Opposition, pg. 4.)

Defendant’s interrogatories regarding Plaintiff’s driving licensure are not relevant to the scope of Plaintiff’s SAC, as the SAC does not make any allegations related to operating a motor vehicle, aside from Plaintiff “loading and unloading his vehicle near the entry of Building C,” and is not “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  (SAC ¶377; Colonial Life & Accounting Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.App.3d 785, 790; Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.App.2d 355, 377-378.)  Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel FROG Nos. 2.3-2.4 is denied.

FROG Series 2.0, Nos. 2.6, 2.11-2.13

These interrogatories ask: (2.6) State: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of your present employer or place of self-employment; and (b) the name, ADDRESS, dates of employment, job title, and nature of work for each employer or self-employment you have had from five years before the INCIDENT until today.; (2.11) At the time of the INCIDENT were you acting as an agent or employee for any PERSON? If so, state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of that PERSON; and (b) a description of your duties; (2.12) At the time of the INCIDENT did you or any other PERSON have any physical, emotional, or mental disability or condition that may have contributed to the occurrence of the INCIDENT? If so, for each PERSON state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number; (b) the nature of the disability or condition; and (c) the manner in which the disability or condition contributed to the occurrence of the INCIDENT; and (2.13) Within 24 hours before the INCIDENT did you or any PERSON involved in the INCIDENT use or take any of the following substances; alcoholic beverage, marijuana, or other drug or medication of any kind (prescription or not)? If so, for each PERSON state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number; (b) the nature or description of each substance; (c) the quantity of each substance used or taken; (d) the date and time of day when each substance was used or taken; (e) the ADDRESS where each substance was used or taken; (f) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who was present when each substance was used or taken; and (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any health care provider who prescribed or furnished the substance and the condition for which it was prescribed or furnished.

In his initial response, Plaintiff objected to answering these interrogatories as vague and ambiguous because the propounding party did not specify the “Incident.”  (Motion SS, pgs. 6, 7, 9, 10.) 

Defendant argues Plaintiff has not objected that this interrogatory is irrelevant and has thus waived that potential objection.  (C.C.P. §2030.290(a).)  Defendant argues Plaintiff makes baseless objections to Form Interrogatories that are within the scope of permissible discovery pursuant to C.C.P. §2033.710.  (Motion SS, pg. 7.)

Plaintiff argues the FROGs were silent as to what the “incident” consisted of, and as such, Plaintiff was entitled to pass on all FROGS that addressed the “incident.”  (Opposition, pg. 4.)  However, Plaintiff responded to FROG 2.6 in part, stating “HTH Architects; 9854 National Boulevard, #171, Los Angeles, California 90034; unaware of phone number.”  (Motion SS, pg. 6.)

           Plaintiff’s responses to FROG Nos. 2.11-2.13 are evasive and incomplete and his objections are without merit.  (C.C.P. §2030.300.)  Defendant’s FROGs are relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action and appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (C.C.P. §2017.010.)  Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to FROG Nos. 2.11-2.13 is granted and denied as to FROG No. 2.6.

FROG Nos. 4.1-4.2

These interrogatories ask: (4.1) At the time of the INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance through which you were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages claims, or actions that have arisen out of

the INCIDENT? If so, for each policy state: (a) the kind of coverage; (b) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured; (d) the policy number; (e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the policy; (f) whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute exists between

you and the insurance company; and (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the policy; and (4.2) Are you self-insured under any statute for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the INCIDENT? If so, specify the statute.

In his initial response, Plaintiff objected to answering these interrogatories as vague and ambiguous because the propounding party did not specify the “Incident.”  (Motion SS, pgs. 11, 12.) 

Plaintiff and Defendants make the same arguments as stated in the preceding FROGS.

Plaintiff’s responses to FROG Nos. 4.1-4.2 are evasive and incomplete and his objections are without merit.  (C.C.P. §2030.300.)  Defendant’s FROGs are relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action and appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (C.C.P. §2017.010.)  Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to FROG Nos. 4.1-4.2 is granted.

FROG Nos. 6.1-6.7

These interrogatories ask: (6.1) Do you attribute any physical, mental, or emotional injuries to the INCIDENT? (If your answer is “no,” do not answer interrogatories 6.2 through 6.7); (6.2) Identify each injury you attribute to the INCIDENT and the area of your body affected; (6.3) Do you still have any complaints that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each complaint state: (a) a description; (b) whether the complaint is subsiding, remaining the same, or becoming worse; and (c) the frequency and duration; (6.4) Did you receive any consultation or examination (except from expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210–2034.310) or treatment from a HEALTH CARE PROVIDER for any injury you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number; (b) the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided; (c) the dates you received consultation, examination, or treatment; and (d) the charges to date; (6.5) Have you taken any medication, prescribed or not, as a result of injuries that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each medication state: (a) the name; (b) the PERSON who prescribed or furnished it; (c) the date it was prescribed or furnished; (d) the dates you began stopped taking it; and (e) the cost to date; (6.6) Are there any other medical services necessitated by the injuries that you attribute to the INCIDENT that were not previously listed (for example, ambulance, nursing)? If so, for each service state: (a) the nature; (b) the date; (c) the cost; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each provider; and (6.7) Has any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER advised that you may require future or additional treatment for any injuries that you attribute the INCIDENT? If so, for each injury state: (a) the name and ADDRESS of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER; (b) the complaints for which the treatment was advised; and (c) the nature, duration, and estimated cost of the treatment.

In his initial response, Plaintiff objected to answering these interrogatories as vague and ambiguous because the propounding party did not specify the “Incident.”  (Motion SS, pgs. 13-15, 17, 18, 20.)

Plaintiff and Defendants make the same arguments as stated in the preceding FROGS.

Plaintiff’s responses to FROG Nos. 4.1-4.2 are evasive and incomplete and his objections are without merit.  (C.C.P. §2030.300.)  Defendant’s FROGs are relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action and appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (C.C.P. §2017.010.)  Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to FROG Nos. 6.1-6.7 is granted.

FROG Nos. 7.1-7.3

These interrogatories ask: (7.1) Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item of property: (a) describe the property; (b) describe the nature and location of the damage to the property; (c) state the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property and how the amount was calculated; and (d) if the property was sold, state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the seller, the date of sale, and the sale price; (7.2) Has a written estimate or evaluation been made for any item of property referred to in your answer to the preceding interrogatory? If so, for each estimate or evaluation state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who prepared it and the date prepared; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has a copy of it; and (c) the amount of damage stated; and (7.3) Has any item of property referred to in your answer to interrogatory 7.1 been repaired? If so, for each item state: (a) the date repaired; (b) a description of the repair; (c) the repair cost; (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who repaired it; (e) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who paid for the repair.

In his initial response, Plaintiff objected to answering these interrogatories as vague and ambiguous because the propounding party did not specify the “Incident.”  (Motion SS, pgs. 21, 23, 24.)

Plaintiff and Defendants make the same arguments as stated in the preceding FROGS.

Plaintiff’s responses to FROG Nos. 4.1-4.2 are evasive and incomplete and his objections are without merit.  (C.C.P. §2030.300.)  Defendant’s FROGs are relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action and appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (C.C.P. §2017.010.)  Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to FROG Nos. 7.1-7.3 is granted.

FROG Nos. 8.1-8.8

These interrogatories ask: (8.1) Do you attribute any loss of income or earning capacity to the INCIDENT? (If your answer is “no,” do not answer interrogatories 8.2 through); (8.2) State: (a) the of you work; (b) your job title at the time of the INCIDENT; AND (c) the date your employment began; (8.3) State the last date before the INCIDENT that you worked for compensation; (8.4) State your monthly income at the time of the INCIDENT and how the amount was calculated; (8.5) State the date you returned to work at each place of employment following the INCIDENT; (8.6) State the dates you did not work and for which lost income as a result of the INCIDENT; (8.7) State the total income you have lost to date as a result of the INCIDENT and how the amount was calculated; and (8.8) Will you lose income in the future as a result of the INCIDENT? If so state: (a) the facts upon which you base this contention; (b) an estimate of the amount; (c) an estimate of how long you will be unable to work; and (d) how the claim for future income is calculated.

In his initial response, Plaintiff objected to answering these interrogatories as vague and ambiguous because the propounding party did not specify the “Incident.”  (Motion SS, pgs. 25-27, 29-32.)  However, Plaintiff did respond in part to FROG No. 8.2.

Plaintiff and Defendants make the same arguments as stated in the preceding FROGS.

Plaintiff’s responses to FROG Nos. 8.1-8.8 are evasive and incomplete and his objections are without merit.  (C.C.P. §2030.300.)  Defendant’s FROGs are relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action and appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (C.C.P. §2017.010.)  Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to FROG Nos. 8.1-8.8 is granted.

FROG Nos. 9.1-9.2

These interrogatories ask: (9.1) Are there any other damages that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item of damage state: (a) the nature; (b) the date it occurred; (c) the amount; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each person to who an obligation was incurred; and (9.2) Do any DOCUMENTS support the existence or amount of any Item of damages claimed in Interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe each document and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.

In his initial response, Plaintiff objected to answering these interrogatories as vague and ambiguous because the propounding party did not specify the “Incident.”  (Motion SS, pgs. 33-34.)  

Plaintiff and Defendants make the same arguments as stated in the preceding FROGS.

Plaintiff’s responses to FROG Nos. 9.1-9.2 are evasive and incomplete and his objections are without merit.  (C.C.P. §2030.300.)  Defendant’s FROGs are relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action and appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (C.C.P. §2017.010.)  Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to FROG Nos. 9.1-9.2 is granted.

FROG Nos. 12.1-12.7

These interrogatories ask: (12.1) State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual: (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; (b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; (c) who heard any statement made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and (d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034); (12.2) Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed; (b) the date of the interview; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who conducted the interview; (12.3) Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained a written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each statement state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from whom the statement was obtained; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who obtained the statement; (c) the date the statement was obtained; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original statement or a copy; (12.4) Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any photographs, films, or videotapes depicting any place, object, or individual concerning the INCIDENT or plaintiff’s injuries? If so, state: (a) the number of photographs or feet of film or videotape; (b) the places, objects, or PERSONS photographed, filmed, or videotaped; (c) the date the photographs, films, or videotapes were taken; (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual taking the photographs, films, or videotapes; and (e) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of the photographs, films, or videotapes; (12.5) Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any diagram, reproduction, or model of any place or thing (except for items developed by expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.310) concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each item state: (a) the type (i.e., diagram, reproduction, or model); (b) the date and type of report made; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON for whom the report was made; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of the report; (12.6) Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the INCIDENT? If so, state: (a) the name, title, identification number, and employer of the PERSON who made the report; (b) the date and type of report made; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON for whom the report was made; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of the report; and (12.7) Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF inspected the scene of the INCIDENT? If so, for each inspection state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual making the inspection (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.310); and (b) the date of the inspection.

In his initial response, Plaintiff objected to answering these interrogatories as vague and ambiguous because the propounding party did not specify the “Incident.”  (Motion SS, pgs. 36-43.)

Plaintiff and Defendants make the same arguments as stated in the preceding FROGS.

Plaintiff’s responses to FROG Nos. 12.1-12.7 are evasive and incomplete and his objections are without merit.  (C.C.P. §2030.300.)  Defendant’s FROGs are relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action and appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (C.C.P. §2017.010.)  Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to FROG Nos. 12.1-12.7 is granted.

FROG Nos. 13.1-13.2, 14.1-14.2

These interrogatories ask: (13.1) Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF conducted surveillance of any individual involved in the INCIDENT or any party to this action? If so, for each surveillance state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual or party; (b) the time, date, and place of the surveillance; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who conducted the surveillance; (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of any surveillance photograph, film, or videotape; (13.2) Has a written report been prepared on the surveillance? If so, for each written report state: (a) the title; (b) the date; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who prepared the report; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy; (14.1) Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF contend that any PERSON involved in the INCIDENT violated any statute, ordinance, or regulation and that the violation was a legal (proximate) cause of the INCIDENT? If so, identify the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON and the statute, ordinance, or regulation that was violated; (14.2) Was any PERSON cited or charged with a violation of any statute, ordinance, or regulation as a result of this INCIDENT? If so, for each PERSON state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON; (b) the statute, ordinance, or regulation allegedly violated; (c) whether the PERSON entered a plea in response to the citation or charge and, if so, the plea entered; and (d) the name and ADDRESS of the court or administrative agency, names of the parties, and case number.

In his initial response, Plaintiff objected to answering these interrogatories as vague and ambiguous because the propounding party did not specify the “Incident.”  (Motion SS, pgs. 44-45, 47-48.)

Plaintiff and Defendants make the same arguments as stated in the preceding FROGS.

Plaintiff’s responses to FROG Nos. 13.1-13.2 and 14.1-14.2 are evasive and incomplete and his objections are without merit.  (C.C.P. §2030.300.)  Defendant’s FROGs are relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action and appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (C.C.P. §2017.010.)  Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to FROG Nos. 13.1-13.2 and 14.1-14.2 is granted.

Monetary Sanctions

The Court finds sanctions are not warranted in light of the ruling on the motion. 

Dated:  January _____, 2023

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court