Judge: Nick A. Dourbetas, Case: 2018-00970710, Date: 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories


Defendant Avco Corporation’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300.)


The motion is granted as to Special Interrogatories No. 185-187 on the grounds that the objections raised are without merit, or on the grounds that plaintiff failed to justify the objections. (See Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)


The motion is denied as to Special Interrogatory No. 188. Defendant failed to show the relevance of any prospective testimony by Ms. Sykes, such as showing that she ever had flown in the subject aircraft with plaintiff, observed plaintiff preparing to fly the subject aircraft, or that plaintiff had ever confided in Ms. Sykes, anything having to do with the subject accident or the circumstances surrounding plaintiff’s operation of the aircraft.  The fact that Ms. Sykes’ name came up in plaintiff’s deposition does not show that she has information that is admissible or would lead to the discussion of admissible evidence.


Based upon the foregoing, defendant has also failed to make the required showing as to why defendant’s need for the information outweighs Ms. Sykes’ constitutional privacy interest in her contact information.  (See Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 502.)


Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied based upon the failure to fully comply with Calif. Code of Civil Procedure, section 2023.04 in the notice of motion.


Based upon the court’s ruling on the merits of the motion, plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.


The court declined to consider the new arguments raised in the reply as to Interrogatory No. 188, as the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and the connection between Ms. Sykes’ contact information and plaintiff’s claimed damages. This information and argument was available to Avco at the time this motion was filed. Thus the argument  should have been raised in the moving papers, so plaintiff could have an opportunity to address the same. 


Defendant is ordered to give notice.