Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 2022-01243193, Date: 2022-11-28 Tentative Ruling
Please Note: The hearing on this matter is scheduled for 8:30 A.M.
Motions to Compel
Defendant Kia America, Inc.’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories (set one) and motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories (set one) are GRANTED.
Plaintiff Matthew Parrish is ORDERED to serve verified supplemental responses to Form Interrogatories Numbers 2.8, 7.1, 9.1, 9.2, 17.1, 20.9, 20.10, and 50.2, and Special Interrogatories Numbers 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14-33, 35-38, 43-45, 47, 49, 52, 57, 59, 61, 63-70, 72-85, 87, 89-92, and 94-99 within 30 days of receiving the notice of ruling.
Defendant Kia America, Inc.’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents (set one) and motion to compel further responses to requests for admission (set one) are taken OFF CALENDAR
Defendant Kia America, Inc. moves to compel Plaintiff Matthew Parrish to provide further responses to form interrogatories (set one), special interrogatories (set one), requests for production of documents (set one), and requests for admissions (set one).
Compelling Further Responses to Interrogatories
A party may move for an order compelling further responses to interrogatories on the grounds that: (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)
Meet and Confer
With respect to the motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories (set one) and special interrogatories (set one), Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not properly met and conferred. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) However, Defendant sent a meet and confer letter on 06/30/2022 and then filed the instant motions on 07/07/2022, when Plaintiff had not responded.
Defendant could certainly have done more to meet and confer, such as by attempting followup communication with Plaintiff. However, Defendant’s efforts were sufficient in light of the fact that Plaintiff does not appear to have responded to the meet and confer letter, whether before or after the filing of the instant motions.
Objections
In response to each of the special and form interrogatories, Plaintiff asserted a number of objections. However, if a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the interrogatories or other discovery. (See Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)
In this case, Plaintiff has not attempted to justify his objections, except for those to special interrogatory number 6. This interrogatory asks for the name, address, phone number, policy number, and policy period for each insurance company which has covered the subject vehicle. While Plaintiff claims that this information is irrelevant, Defendant responds that this information is material because Plaintiff’s insurance company may have relevant documents or information relating to accidents involving the vehicle and the mileage allotment in the insurance policy. The information also may be relevant because Plaintiff claims insurance payments as a form of damages.
Given the broad nature of discovery and the fact that Plaintiff did not otherwise support his objections, the court overrules the objections. (See Civil Proc. Code, § 2017.010; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. vs. Pacific Healthcare Consultations (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402 [Civil Discovery Act was intended to provide right to broad discovery and must be liberally construed in favor of allowing discovery].)
In addition, to the extent that Plaintiff provided substantive responses, Plaintiff was required to and failed to include verifications. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250, subd. (a).) Unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Thus, the substantive responses were not code compliant.
Mootness
Plaintiff asserts that the motions to compel are moot because it provided supplemental responses to many of the special interrogatories. However, the supplemental responses also appear to be unverified and therefore, are not code compliant.
Compelling Further Responses to Requests for the Production of Documents and Requests for Admission
On 11/16/2022, Defendant Kia America, Inc. filed its Notice of Withdrawal of Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Requests for Admissions (Set One). Those motions to compel shall be taken off calendar.
Defendant shall give notice of this ruling.