Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV05733, Date: 2024-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05733    Hearing Date: August 1, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One)

Tentative

The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Background

On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff Rachel Tabb filed a complaint against Defendants Matthew Tyler Ray (“Ray”), Counsel Productions LLC (“Counsel”), and Does 1 through 10, for negligence arising out of an automobile accident on March 24, 2022, at or near the intersection of North Cahuenga Boulevard and Ivar Avenue in Los Angeles.

Ray and Counsel filed their answer on June 6. 2023.

On June 10, 2024, Counsel filed this motion to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One).  In the memorandum, but not in the notice of motion and motion, Counsel seeks sanctions.

No opposition was filed.  Counsel filed a “reply” on July 10, 2024.

The hearing was initially scheduled for July 17 but was continued by the Court to August 1.

The parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference on May 30, 2024.  The issues were not resolved.

The Court is aware that two other discovery motions are currently set for hearing on August 19.

Legal Standard

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Notice of a motion to compel further responses must be given “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Id., subd. (c).)

A motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration and a separate statement or, in the discretion of the Court, a “concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Id., subd. (b)(1) & (b)(2); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Discussion

Counsel seeks to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories 2.3, 2.6, 4.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, 6.7, 7.2, 7.3, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 9.1, and 20.2, and Special Interrogatories 22-26 and 31-33.

Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the motion.

The Court has carefully reviewed the interrogatories, responses, and objections.  The Court GRANTS the motion as to Form Interrogatories 2.3, 2.6, 4.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, 6.7, 7.2, 7.3, 8.4, 8.8, and 20.2, and Special Interrogatories 22-26, 31-33. 

The answers are incomplete and/or evasive.  Plaintiff objected to some (but not all) of these interrogatories.  Plaintiff’s objections are all OVERRULED.

The Court DENIES the motion as to Form Interrogatories 8.2, 8.3, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, and 9.1.  The responses are sufficient and code compliant.

The request for sanctions does not appear in the notice of motion and motion and is therefore denied.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES the motion in part.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide code compliant, verified responses, without objection, to Form Interrogatories 2.3, 2.6, 4.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, 6.7, 7.2, 7.3, 8.4, 8.8, and 20.2, and to Special Interrogatories 22-26, 31-33 within 14 days of notice.

In all other respects, the Court DENIES the motion.

Moving party to give notice.