Judge Roger Ito, Case Number: 23NWCV00061, Date: 2024-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Roger Ito, Case: 23NWCV00061, Date: 2024-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00061 Hearing Date: April 22, 2024 Dept: H

Irvin Aguilar vs International Forklift Company

Case No.: 23NWCV00061

Hearing Date: April 22, 2024 @ 9:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Defendant International Forklift Company’s Motion to Compel Further is GRANTED.

Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $1,069.95.

Defendant to give notice.

Background

This action was filed on January 9, 2023 by Plaintiff Irvin Aguilar against International Forklift Company. The Complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) Negligence, (2) Negligence Per Se, (3) Pain and Suffering, (4) IIED, (5) NIED, (6) Assault, (7) Battery, (8) Statutory Negligent Entrustment of a Vehicle, (9) Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, (10) Respondeat Superior, and (11) Strict Liability.

On October 2, 2023, Defendants propounded upon Plaintiff, Special Interrogatories, Set Two. (Hillier Decl., Exhibit A.) On November 1, 2023, Plaintiff served his verified responses to the Special Interrogatories, Set Two. (Hillier Decl., Exhibit B.)

Meet and Confer Requirement

A motion¿to compel further responses to requests for production “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).)¿ The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.)¿

The Court finds that Defendant has fulfilled the meet and confer requirement. (Hillier Decl., Exhibit C.)

Separate Statement

A motion to compel further responses requires a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) Defendant has submitted a separate statement. (Hillier Decl., Exhibit D.)

Discussion

Defendant seeks further responses as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 28, 29, 32, and 38. The Court rules as follows:

Special Interrogatory No. 28

The interrogatory requests for Plaintiff to: “State the name and address of the HOSPITAL where the Plaintiff was transported following his SUBSEQUENT (2023) auto accident as testified to at Plaintiff’s deposition on/about September 27, 2023.”

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s answers are unreasonably evasive. As the claims are derived from injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff it is reasonable to conclude that Plaintiff should be able to provide the name and address of the Hospital where Plaintiff was treated after the auto accident.

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Further is SUSTAINED as to Special Interrogatory No. 28.

Special Interrogatory No. 29

The interrogatory requests for Plaintiff to: “List the injuries, including all body parts, the Plaintiff is claiming to have injured in his SUBSEQUENT auto accident noted above.”

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s answers are unreasonably evasive. As the claims are derived from injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff it is reasonable to conclude that Plaintiff should be able to provide information regarding the injuries sustained by Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Further is SUSTAINED as to Special Interrogatory No. 29.

Special Interrogatory No. 32

The interrogatory requests for Plaintiff to: “State the name and address of the Plaintiff’s landlord at the time of his PRIOR slip and fall as testified to at deposition on/about September 27, 2023.”

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he previously suffered from back pain as a result of a slip and fall and that the auto incident aggravated the injury. (Complaint, ¶ 22.) As Plaintiff contends he had a previous injury that was aggravated due to the auto accident, it is reasonable for Defendant to obtain the name and address of the landlord at the time of the prior slip and fall to discover information related to the injury.

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Further is SUSTAINED as to Special Interrogatory No. 32.

Form Interrogatory No. 38

The interrogatory requests for Plaintiff to: “Identify by name, address and phone number the other party’s Attorney who took the Plaintiff’s PRIOR deposition “about a week” prior to the Plaintiff’s 9/27/23 deposition in the subject lawsuit as testified to by the Plaintiff at his 9/27/23 deposition.”

As noted above, Plaintiff alleged he previously suffered from back pain as result of a slip and fall. The Court finds it reasonable that Defendant may obtain the name and address of the Attorney in the slip and fall incident at his apartment.

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Further is SUSTAINED as to Special Interrogatory No. 38.

Sanctions

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories or demand for production of documents unless the party subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h), 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Given that Plaintiff unsuccessfully opposed the motion to compel further, sanctions must be imposed.

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $869.95 (2 hours preparing the instant motion and 2 hours appearing for the motion at a rate of $200.00 per hour and a filing fee of $69.95.) The Court notes that this motion was continued, due to assurances by Plaintiff that parties would meet and confer prior to the hearing date. However, this has not occurred. Therefore, the Court deems it appropriate to grant another hour for the subsequent appearance. Accordingly, the Court grants sanctions in the amount of $1,069.95.