Judge: Peter Wilson, Case: 2021-01215820, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

This hearing was continued from 07-06-23 to enable the parties to meet and confer in an effort to clarify any remaining disputes. (ROA 166.) The Court adopts and incorporates herein the findings in its prior Minute Order. (Id.)

The parties have submitted a joint statement, which explains the remaining dispute concerns Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 14.1, and 14.2. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to (1) Requests for Admissions (Set One); (2) Requests for Production Of Documents (Set One); and (3) Special Interrogatories (Set One) from Defendant Palmieri Tyler Wiener Wilhelm & Waldron LLP are DENIED as moot. As supplemental responses and productions by Defendant or ongoing, this denial is without prejudice and Plaintiff may renew its requests if the supplemental responses/productions are incomplete, by filing and serving its further motion(s) to compel by not later than 14 days after Defendant has confirmed in writing that it's responses are complete.

Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 14.1, and 14.2

The parties’ disagreement concerns the use of the standard definition of INCIDENT. Defendant has agreed to provide responses if new requests are served incorporating a narrowed definition. (ROA 168 at 2-3.) Plaintiff disagrees a narrowed definition is necessary.

Defendant originally objected to the above requests because the use of “incident” rendered them “vague, overbroad, unintelligible, invasive of the attorney-client privilege due to overbreadth, invasive of rights of privacy due to overbreadth, invasive of attorney work product due to overbreadth, unduly burdensome and oppressive, compound, conjunctive, disjunctive and irrelevant.” (See, e.g., Sep. Statement in Opp. at 7 [FROG 12.1].) Defendant asserted the standard definition of incident is confined to accidents and/or single occurrences.

Pursuant to Judicial Council Form DISC-001, “INCIDENT” is defined as “the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding.” (Id. § 4(a)(1).) While the standard definition of “incident” is not limited to personal injury cases, applying the standard definition to a complex case involving multiple events and occurrences may indeed render the interrogatories “ambiguous and confusing.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2016) ¶ 8:933.8, p. 8F–9.)

Here, the operative FAC includes allegations covering an expansive time period, 2004-2021. Furthermore, a variety of causes of action are alleged and are based upon, among other things, transfers of corporate interests, the formation of a trust, a retainer agreement, and legal representation in litigation. (See ROA 68.) In other words, it is unclear to which “incident” these interrogatories are directed.

Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant has met its burden to justify its vagueness objection. (See Weil, et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2018) ¶ 8:1179 [“If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection . . . .”].)

Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 14.1, and 14.2 is accordingly DENIED.

However, the Judicial Council has provided the option of a case-specific definition of “incident” (Judicial Council Form DISC-001 § 4(a)(2)), and this denial is without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to propound further sets of form interrogatories which provide a specific definition of “incident” for each set.

Sanctions

Per C.C.P. § 2023.020, “[n]otwithstanding the outcome of the particular discovery motion, the court shall impose a monetary sanction ordering that any party or attorney who fails to confer as required pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”

As the Court previously found, “the parties, and particularly Defendant, have failed to satisfy the meet and confer requirement.” (ROA 166.) Accordingly, the Court awards sanctions against Defendant and its counsel Attorney Jon Robinson, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,850 in favor of Plaintiff. The Court has reduced the $17,877.50 requested by Plaintiff as the motions were relatively uncomplicated. The amount awarded represents attorney’s fees based on six hours per motion at $325/hr. Sanctions must be paid no later than 10 calendar days of notice of this order unless the parties agree in writing otherwise.

Plaintiff to give notice.