Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 2021-01220754, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Management Conference
The case management conference shall be conducted during the 10:30 am calendar on 09/12/2022 and after the hearing on the motion to compel.
Motion to Compel
The motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories (set one) of Plaintiff Cliq, Inc. is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The motion is GRANTED as to form interrogatory numbers 2.6, 15.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, and 50.6, and the Court ORDERS Defendant Burrell to serve verified supplemental responses upon Plaintiff Cliq, Inc. within 30 days of this ruling.
The motion is DENIED as to form interrogatory numbers 2.3, 2.4, 2.11, 2.12, 4.1, 4.2, 12.4, 14.1, and 14.2.
The motion is MOOT as to form interrogatory numbers 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, and 3.6.
The Court DENIES all requests for sanctions.
Compelling Further Responses
Plaintiff Cliq, Inc. moves to compel further responses from Defendant Sabin Burrell to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One).
Plaintiff asserts that it properly served form interrogatories on Defendant Burrell on 03/02/2022 and Defendant Burrell served responses that only included objections on 04/04/2022. After meeting and conferring, Defendant Burrell served supplemental responses to form interrogatory numbers 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8 and 3.6 on 05/20/2022.
On 07/18/2022, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer further on the form interrogatories still at issue, but the parties have not been able to resolve any of the remaining issues.
A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories on the grounds that the answer is evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce documents under Civil Procedure Code section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, or an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Civil Proc. Code, § 2030.300, subd. (a).)
Defendant Burrell argues that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith and was too quick to file the instant motion. However, the parties met and conferred prior to the filing of the instant motion and resolved some of the issues at that time. The parties then met and conferred further as ordered by the court on 07/12/2022. This is sufficient.
Defendant Burrell also objected that form interrogatories numbers 2.3, 2.4, 2.11, 2.12, 4.1, 4.2, 12.4, 14.1, and 14.2 were vague and ambiguous because they reference the term “INCIDENT”. Even though the instructions to the form interrogatories judicial council form states that the term “INCIDENT” should be modified in cases where “the action arises from a course of conduct or series of events occurring over a period of time”, Plaintiff’s form interrogatories rely on the standard definition of “INCIDENT.”
That definition states that “INCIDENT” “includes the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding.” However, a reading of the complaint reveals that the facts of this case are complicated and the incidents alleged in the complaint span several years. The court agrees that it is not reasonably possible for Defendant Burrell to provide responses to form interrogatories numbers 2.3, 2.4, 2.11, 2.12, 4.1, 4.2, 12.4, 14.1, and 14.2 for this reason.
At the same time, Defendant Burell’s objections to form interrogatories numbers 2.6, 15.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, and 50.6 are unpersuasive. Even if the form interrogatories are premature or irrelevant, Defendant Burrell must make a reasonable attempt to provide substantive responses if it is possible to do so.
Parties are entitled to discovery of “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.” (Civil Proc. Code, § 2017.010.) Further, the Civil Discovery Act was intended to provide the right to broad discovery and must be liberally construed in favor of allowing discovery. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. vs. Pacific Healthcare Consultations (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402.)
If the form interrogatories seek information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney-work product doctrine, Defendant Burrell must do more than simply object and refuse to provide further information. Defendant Burrell must provide a privilege log that includes information sufficient for Plaintiff to decide whether it wishes to challenge the assertion of privilege. (See, e.g., Civil Proc. Code, § 2031.240, subd. (c).)
Finally, the motion is moot as to form interrogatories numbers 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, and 3.6, for which supplemental responses have been provided. (See Perrino Decl., Exh. H.)
Sanctions
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Civil Proc. Code, § 2030.300(d).)
In this case, each party unsuccessfully made or unsuccessfully opposed a portion of the instant motion. The parties’ unsuccessful actions were taken without “substantial justification” and there are no circumstances that make the imposition of sanctions unjust.
However, each party is responsible in approximately equal measure for causing the motion to compel to be brought when much of this could have been prevented by drafting a clearer definition of “INCIDENT” or providing substantive responses to form interrogatories that only seek background information and information regarding Defendant Burrell’s defenses and position with respect to the agreement(s) central to this case.
Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.