Judge: Nick A. Dourbetas, Case: 2018-00970710, Date: 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories
2. Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions

Motion No. 1:

Plaintiff Anthony Longobardo’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set No. 3 and Imposition of Sanctions is GRANTED. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300.)

The defendant’s responses to Form Interrogatories No. 1.1 and 17.1 are incomplete and evasive.

California Code of Civil procedure, section 2030.210, subdivision (a)(3) requires:

“The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory…[and] an objection to the particular interrogatory.”

Thus, an interrogatory response must raise any objections to the interrogatory separately as to each disputed interrogatory. Simply stating that “objections were raised as to the underlying request for admissions” is inadequate to rase the same objection as to the interrogatory. Thus, defendant has failed to raise timely objections to the interrogatory and any objections have been raised.  (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

The court imposes $ 2,260.00 in monetary sanctions against defendant Avco payable to counsel for plaintiff within thirty days. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Motion No. 2:

Plaintiff Anthony Longobardo’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set No. 2 and Imposition of Sanctions is GRANTED. (See Code Civ. Proc. §  2030.300.)

The court finds that defendant’s objections are either without merit, or defendant’s opposition fails to justify such objections, especially, in light of the fact that defendant’s counsel used the same words and phrases during plaintiff’s deposition.

As to Requests No. 3-11, the requests do not seek admissions on matters that would require expert testimony. The requests seek to establish whether plaintiff took or failed to take certain actions while flying the airplane on the day of the accident. These are objective facts, and do not require the responding party to consult with an expert witness. The mere fact that defendant’s experts may ultimately rely upon these facts in reaching an opinion on the cause of the accident does not mean that these facts (as opposed to the expert’s opinion rendering process, reports, etc.), are not the proper subject for a request for admissions.

As for the remining requests, defendant fails to justify its objection that the request sought expert witness information. 

The court imposes $3,420.00 in monetary sanctions against defendant Avco payable to counsel for plaintiff within thirty days. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

The court declined to consider the reply declaration. (See Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-38 [Anti-SLAPP]). 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.