Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV45874, Date: 2022-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45874    Hearing Date: August 3, 2022    Dept: 39

Robert Campbell v. Yuanyu Lin, et al.

Case No. 21STCV45874

Motion for Protective Order

            Plaintiff Robert Campbell (“Plaintiff”) filed this action asserting habitability claims, as well as related claims for nuisance, negligence, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional influence to vacate.  There are three defendants.  Defendant Yuanyu Lin (“Defendant Lin”) is represented by counsel; Defendant Eric Armbrust is a self-represented party; and Defendant Mark Lee was served but has not answered. 

            Defendant Lin has served 775 special interrogatories against a single plaintiff.  Plaintiff now moves for a protective order.  A party has the right to serve 35 special interrogatories on each other party to the litigation.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.030, subd. (a)(1).)  If a party propounds additional special interrogatories on another party, it must include a declaration in which its counsel states that the additional interrogatories are necessary.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.030, subd. (b).)  This declaration must establish that “the greater number is warranted by the complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.040, subd. (a).)  If the responding party contends the additional requests for admissions are unwarranted, it may move for a protective order “to protect any party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.080, subd. (b).)

The evidence before the Court suggests that this is a relatively straightforward habitability action, which does not warrant this volume of written discovery.  As such, the number of interrogatories is unreasonable on its face.  Plaintiff has shown that the discovery constitutes an undue burden on Plaintiff.  (See Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1145.)  In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s complaint raises “countless issues . . . ,” but Defendant identifies only four such issues: that the rental property had vermin infestation, that the property had mold growth, that Defendant threatened Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of Defendant’s conduct.  (Opposition to Motion for Protective Order, pp. 7-8.)  The Court denies Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for sanctions because he did not make sufficient efforts to meet-and-confer to resolve this dispute, per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.090(a). 

In sum, the Court finds that both parties have acted inappropriately in this case.  Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:

1.         Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order is granted.  Defendant Lin shall re-serve this requests for special interrogatories.  Defendant Lin may serve only 60 special interrogatories upon Plaintiff, and Plaintiff may serve only 60 special interrogatories upon Defendant Lin.

2.         The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

3.         Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.