Judge: Nick A. Dourbetas, Case: 2021-01193700, Date: 2022-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Defendant Natural Touch, Inc.’s (hereinafter, Natural Touch) motion to compel further responses to its first set of special interrogatories is GRANTED. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.)

Plaintiff David J. Boyle (hereinafter, plaintiff) shall serve verified further responses without objection to Natural Touch’s first set of special interrogatories, Nos. 19-23, within 10 days of the date of this hearing.

In his opposition papers, plaintiff maintains his objections to the subject contention special interrogatories based on overbreadth/undue burden; Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.060, subdivisions (d) and (f); and on the ground the special interrogatories are “moot” because plaintiff has now amended the complaint twice since the special interrogatories were served.

All of these objections fail. First, plaintiff has failed to substantiate the overbreadth/undue burden with any evidence. (See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549-550.)

Next, the subject special interrogatories are not impermissibly compound and do not impermissibly reference other materials, such that they are subject to objection under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.060, subdivisions (d) and/or (f). An interrogatory may properly ask a party to state his or her contentions as to any matter or issue in the case, and the facts, witnesses or writings on which the contentions are based. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010, subd. (b); see also Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 285 [finding interrogatory demanding that the defendant state “all the facts upon which you have based your [general] denial of all of the allegations contained in plaintiffs’ complaint” to be proper].) Further, the purpose of these formatting rules is to prevent questions worded so as to require more information than could be obtained by 35 separate questions, and none of the subject special interrogatories here are worded in such a manner so as to undermine the rule of 35. (See Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1287, 1289-1291.) Natural Touch is entitled to know the factual bases for plaintiff’s claims alleged against it, and would certainly be entitled to more than 35 special interrogatories to determine these facts.

Finally, the subject interrogatories are not “moot” just because plaintiff has amended the complaint. There is nothing confusing about these special interrogatories; they seek the facts upon which plaintiff bases his claims against Natural Touch for breach of contract, indemnity and contribution, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence. At the time Natural Touch propounded these interrogatories, the then-operative complaint asserted these claims as causes of action one through five. The presently operative second amended complaint continues to assert these same claims, just under different labels and numbers. In the second amended complaint, the claim for breach of contract remains the first cause of action; the claim for indemnity and contribution remains the second cause of action; the claim for intentional misrepresentation now appears as the third and fourth causes of action; the claim for negligent misrepresentation now appears as the sixth cause of action; and the claim for negligence now appears as the seventh cause of action. All of these claims remain at issue in this case. None of this should be confusing or come as a surprise to plaintiff, since it is plaintiff who has amended his complaint in this manner.  

Sanctions in the amount of $2,020 are GRANTED in favor of Natural Touch and against plaintiff, payable within 30 days of the date of this hearing.

Defendant shall give notice.