Judge: Randall J. Sherman, Case: 2020-01139787, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Hollybrook Montecito Operations, LLC's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is granted in part and denied in part.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve further responses to Special Interrogatory #1-3 as to interviews conducted by plaintiff personally, within 20 days.  The motion is denied as to interviews conducted by plaintiff’s counsel.  Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

In Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 214, the court held that Form Interrogatory 12.2, which asks: “Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual concerning the INCIDENT?  If so, [identify them].”, is objectionable on the grounds of work product, because “compelled production of a list of potential witnesses interviewed by opposing counsel would necessarily reflect counsel’s evaluation of the case by revealing which witnesses or persons who claimed knowledge of the incident (already identified by defendants’ response to interrogatory No. 12.1) counsel deemed important enough to interview”.  47 Cal. App. 4th at 217.  This rationale applies to interviews conducted by plaintiff’s counsel, but not to interviews conducted by plaintiff personally.  The cases of Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 480, and Tien v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 528, do not apply, because Coito addressed the production of recorded witness statements, and Tien addressed the identities of class members who contacted plaintiff's counsel.  54 Cal. 4th at 499; 139 Cal. App. 4th at 532.  Neither case addressed simply identifying individuals who were interviewed by plaintiff’s counsel.

Sanctions are denied because defendant failed to draw the distinction between interviews conducted by plaintiff personally and interviews conducted by plaintiff’s counsel, and thus failed to make the argument on which the court is granting this motion in part.

A Status Conference is also set for today and will go forward.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived.