Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV38171, Date: 2023-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38171    Hearing Date: March 6, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Omar Martinez        

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Federal Express Corporation

(1)   Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

(2)   Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with each motion.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiff Omar Martinez (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order (1) compelling defendant Federal Express Corporation (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 34, 43, and 45, and (2) awarding sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $3,210.

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18, 30, 31, and 34 because (1) Defendant’s answers to those interrogatories are evasive and incomplete, and (2) Defendant’s exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted, and the required specification of those documents is inadequate.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2).)

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, number 3 because Defendant’s answer to this interrogatory is evasive and incomplete.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subds. (a)(1).)

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 20 and 21 because they call for information that is protected by the right of privacy of third parties.  

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further response to Special Interrogatories, Set One, number 24 because this interrogatory (1) contains subparts and is compound, and (2) is vague and ambiguous as to the term “Witnesses to Plaintiff’s Case.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060, subd. (f).)

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further response to Special Interrogatories, Set One, number 25 because this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the term “Witnesses to Plaintiff’s Case.”

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 32, 43 and 45 because these interrogatories contain subparts and are compound.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060, subd. (f).)

The court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant because, in light of the mixed results of the rulings, the court finds that the circumstances presented make the imposition of sanctions unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff moves the court for an order (1) compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, numbers 1, 2, 54, 55, 56, and 59, and (2) awarding sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $3,210.

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 1 and 2 because Defendant’s statements of compliance with the demands are incomplete.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1).)

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 54, 55, and 56 because the requests are overbroad since they call for production of information that is (1) neither relevant to the subject matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and (2) protected by the right of privacy of third parties. 

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further response to Requests for Production of Documents, number 59 because Defendant’s objections to this demand are without merit.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(3).)

The court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant because, in light of the mixed results of the rulings, the court finds that the circumstances presented make the imposition of sanctions unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

ORDER

The court grants in part plaintiff Omar Martinez’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, the court orders defendant Federal Express Corporation to serve further, full and complete answers to plaintiff Omar Martinez’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers, 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18, 30, 31, and 34 that comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210-2030.220, and 2030.250, within 20 days of the date of service of this order.¿ 

The court grants in part plaintiff Omar Martinez’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, the court orders defendant Federal Express Corporation (1) to serve on plaintiff Omar Martinez further written responses, without objections, to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, numbers 1, 2, and 59 in plaintiff Omar Martinez’s Requests for Production of Documents, that comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210-2031.250, and (2) to produce to plaintiff Omar Martinez all documents and things in defendant Federal Express Corporation’s possession, custody, or control which are responsive to those requests within 20 days of the date of service of this order. ¿¿ 

The court denies plaintiff Omar Martinez’s requests for sanctions against defendant Federal Express Corporation.

The court orders plaintiff Omar Martinez to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 6, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court