Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 30-2022-01283226, Date: 2023-07-17 Tentative Ruling
Motions to Compel Discovery
Plaintiff Balboa Capital Corporation’s Motion to Compel Further Responses of Defendant Kemrick Transport LLC is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Defendant Kemrick Transport LLC is ORDERED to serve full, complete, and verified responses to Special Interrogatories Numbers 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 18, and 19, within 21 days of service of the notice of ruling.
Defendant Kemrick Transport LLC is ORDERED to Special Interrogatories Numbers 20-22, without objections, within 21 days of service of the notice of ruling.
The court ORDERS that Defendant Kemrick Transport LLC pay to Plaintiff Balboa Capital Corporation sanctions in the amount of $500 within 21 days of service of the notice of ruling.
Plaintiff Balboa Capital Corporation’s Motion to Compel Further Responses of Defendant Richard Christopher Glanville is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Defendant Richard Christopher Glanville is ORDERED to serve full, complete, and verified responses to Special Interrogatories Numbers 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 18, and 19, within 21 days of service of the notice of ruling.
The court ORDERS that Defendant Richard Christopher Glanville pay to Plaintiff Balboa Capital Corporation sanctions in the amount of $300 within 21 days of service of the notice of ruling.
Plaintiff Balboa Capital Corporation moves to compel further responses from Defendant Kemrick Transport LLC (Defendant Kemrick) to Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, and from Defendant Richard Christopher Glanville (Defendant Glanville) to Special Interrogatories, Set No. One.
Compelling Responses and Further Responses to Interrogatories
When a party properly propounds interrogatories and the party receiving the interrogatories fails to respond, “[t]he party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)
In addition, “[t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)
If the responding party serves responses which the propounding party deems deficient, the propounding 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).)
“Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 76; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (f) [making evasive response to discovery is misuse of discovery process].) Where the question is specific and explicit, it is improper to provide only a portion of the information sought or “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)
The Civil Procedure Code requires instructs the responding party that: “(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. (c) 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)
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. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)
Special Interrogatories Numbers 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 18, and 19
These interrogatories seek information about the legal and factual basis upon which Defendants contend they do not owe money to Plaintiff or upon which Defendants have not paid money to Plaintiff.
Rather than answering in a complete and straightforward manner, Defendants’ responses deflect to the allegations that Defendants made against Cross-Defendant Ryder Vehicle Sales LLC (Cross-Defendant Ryder) in Defendants’ Cross-Complaint. Defendants’ responses do not explain why Cross-Defendant Ryder’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentation or its alleged delivery of a defective truck excuses Defendants’ performance to Plaintiff under the equipment financing agreement and/or guaranty.
Defendants do not allege that any terms of the equipment financing agreement and/or guaranty allow for revocation if the equipment purchased from the loan proceeds was defective. To the extent that Defendants contend that Ryder must indemnify Defendants and/or Defendants suffered damages as a result of Ryder’s conduct, that does not lead to the conclusion that Defendants do not owe Plaintiff money or that Defendants need not pay Plaintiff.
The court will grant the Motions to Compel as to these interrogatories.
Special Interrogatories Numbers 14-17
These interrogatories seek information about the legal and factual basis for any affirmative defense and any denial of the allegations of the Complaint. These interrogatories do not seek information regarding any specific affirmative defense or any denial of a specific allegation of the Complaint.
These interrogatories are overbroad and compound (by not identifying any specific affirmative defense or denial of a specific allegation of the Complaint). These interrogatories are also duplicative of Form Interrogatory No. 15.0.
The court will deny the Motions to Compel as to these interrogatories.
Special Interrogatories Numbers 20-22
Defendant Kemrick failed to serve any responses to these interrogatories and its failure to do so violates the Civil Procedure Code.
The court will grant the Motion to Compel as to these interrogatories propounded on Defendant Kemrick.
Sanctions
The Civil Procedure Code requires the court to impose monetary sanctions against a party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses and further responses, “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2030.300, subd. (d).)
If the results of the motion to compel are mixed, the trial court has the discretion to apportion sanctions or award no sanctions on any terms as may be just. (See Mattco Valley Forge v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1437.)
Here, Defendants’ responses to Special Interrogatories Numbers 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 18, and 19 were evasive, which is a misuse of the discovery process. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (f).) Defendant Kemrick’s failure to respond to Special Interrogatories Numbers 20-22 was also a violation of the Civil Discovery Act.
The court finds that there was no substantial justification for those responses (or lack of responses) and no circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust as to those interrogatories.
However, Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Numbers 14-17 were overbroad and duplicative. Because the results of these Motions to Compel were mixed, the court will reduce the amount of sanctions to be awarded to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.