Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV07444, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07444    Hearing Date: October 27, 2022    Dept: 39

Sherry (Talia) Masjedi v. Tax Credit Group, Inc., et al.

Case No. 21STCV07444

Motion to Compel Further Responses

            Defendant Tax Credit Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff Sherry (Talia) Masjedi (“Plaintiff”) to Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFAs”) and Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROGs”).  If the propounding party deems responses to requests for admissions or interrogatories unsatisfactory, the propounding party may move to compel further responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.290; 2030.300.) 

After Defendant filed these motions, Plaintiff served supplemental responses to the RFAs.  As such, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to the RFAs is moot except with respect to sanctions.

Plaintiff’s responses to the FROG consist only of objections.  As Defendant timely filed these motions to compel further responses, Plaintiff has the burden to justify the objections.  (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)  Plaintiff fails to justify the objections.  In fact, Plaintiff’s objections lack merit. 

Plaintiff argues that the FROGs are vague and ambiguous.  Although Defendant did not include the definition of “incident,” the FROGs themselves contain a suggested definition: “[T]he circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding.”  (See Declaration of Mark L. Share, Exhibit A, p. 1.)  “[W]here the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response.”  (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)  Plaintiff should have construed the FROG to include the suggested definition for incident and responded to the extent possible.

Plaintiff also argues that some of the FROG infringe on her right to privacy.  Plaintiff filed this action, and is presumably a percipient witness to her own claims.  As such, Defendant is entitled to basic discovery on her background and contact information.  (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1251-1252.)

The Court denies the parties’ requests for sanctions.  Both sides have engaged in abusive discovery practices, resulting in unnecessary discovery motions.  Therefore, any award of sanctions would be unjust.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            The Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to the FROGs.  Defendant shall provide supplemental responses without objections within thirty (30) days.  The Court denies Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to the RFAs as moot.  The Court denies all requests for sanctions.  Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.