Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: BC665258, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC665258    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Dennis P. Riley

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Madeline Moore

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 100, 101, 102, and 103

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

DISCUSSION

Defendant Dennis P. Riley (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order (1) compelling plaintiff Madeline Moore (“Plaintiff”) to provide further responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, numbers 100, 101, 102, and 103, and (2) awarding sanctions in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in the amount of $2,060.

In opposition, Plaintiff has submitted evidence establishing that she served supplemental further responses to Special Interrogatories, numbers 100, 101, and 102, following the January 5, 2023 Informal Discovery Conference with the court.  (Steiner Decl., ¶¶ 2, 9; Steiner Decl., Ex. B.)  The court exercises its discretion to consider Plaintiff’s supplemental further responses in ruling on this motion.

The court grants Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s further response to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, number 100 because Plaintiff’s supplemental further response to that interrogatory is evasive and incomplete.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1).)  Many of the “opinions” that Plaintiff refers to in her supplemental further response to this interrogatory do not identify a “specific expert opinion” offered by Allan Wallace in the underlying litigation, as requested in special interrogatory number 100, but instead refer to “opinions concerning,” “opinions about,” “opinions as to whether,” and “opinions as to if” as to various subjects.  Special Interrogatory number 100 requires Plaintiff to identify each “specific expert opinion” offered by Allan Wallace in the underlying litigation that Plaintiff contends would have been excluded by the court. 

The court denies Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, numbers 101 and 102 because Plaintiff’s supplemental further responses to those interrogatories are not evasive or incomplete.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1).)

The court denies Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s further response to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, number 103 because Plaintiff’s further response to this interrogatory is not evasive or incomplete.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1).)

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

ORDER

The court grants in part and denies in part defendant Dennis P. Riley’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, numbers 100, 101, 102, and 103.

The court grants defendant Dennis P. Riley’s motion to compel plaintiff Madeline Moore’s further response to special interrogatory number 100.

The court denies all other relief requested in defendant Dennis P. Riley’s motion.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, the court orders plaintiff Madeline Moore to serve a further, full and complete answer to defendant Dennis P. Riley’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, number 100, that complies with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210-2030.220, and 2030.250, within 15 days of the date of this order. 

The court orders defendant Dennis P. Riley to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 2, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court