Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 20-1166578, Date: 2022-12-01 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff, Alina Bright’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Defendant, Jane Ann Ferrara’s (“Defendant”) Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (“Special Rogs”), Set Two is GRANTED, in part and DENIED, in part.  Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Requests for Admissions (“RFA”), Set Two is DENIED.

Further responses in accordance with this ruling are to be provided within 15 days.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the responding party has the burden to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the discovery requests.  (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Interrogatory responses “shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).)  “If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Id., subd. (b).)  “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”  (Id., subd. (c).)

The Court finds Defendant’s responses to Special Rog Nos. 20-25 to be evasive and non-responsive.  While Defendant’s objection based on premature disclosure of expert witness testimony is well-taken, Defendant’s response to these interrogatories notwithstanding the objection is inadequate. 

Defendant states, notwithstanding the objections, that she anticipates that such a contention may be made and that she has no additional facts at this time.  It is unclear from the response whether Defendant is stating that some facts supporting the contention do in fact exist.  If so, Defendant should identify those facts to the extent they do not encompass expert witness information.  The responses to Special Rog Nos. 21, 23 and 25 also do not answer the question posed.  These interrogatories ask for the identity of witnesses.  A further answer identifying responsive witnesses should be provided to the extent such information does not encompass expert witness information.  “A party may not deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of supplying an evasive answer. (Citation.) Indeed, where 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.)

Further, as this matter has been pending for over two years and with a trial date imminent, Defendant should be prepared at this point to state whether such contentions stated in the interrogatories will be made.  “[A] party has a general duty to conduct a reasonable investigation to obtain responsive information [citation] and must furnish information from all sources under his or her control.”  (Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1504; see also, Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782—a party furnishing answers to interrogatories “cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under its control”.)  Thus, the motion to compel a further response to Special Rog Nos. 20-25 is GRANTED.

Defendant’s response to Special Rog No. 29 is sufficient as this interrogatory seeks Defendant’s medical treatment information related to the accident and Defendant has stated that she is not making a claim for damages.  (See Separate Statement [ROA 18], pg. 18-19; Opp. at pg. 4, line 2.)  Thus, Defendant’s objection that this interrogatory seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of this action is well-taken.  Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to Special Rog No. 29 is DENIED.

Requests for Admissions to be Deemed Admitted

The Court finds Defendant’s responses to RFA Nos. 29-37 to be code compliant.  (CCP § 2033.220(c).)  Here, Defendant stated that she is unable to admit or deny, that a reasonable inquiry was made, and that the information known is insufficient.  The foregoing demonstrates substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220(c).  Plaintiff argues that it is not enough to fail to investigate and then deny for lack of information in reliance on the lack of investigation.  While this may be true, Defendant’s responses, which are verified, properly indicate that a reasonable inquiry and investigation was made.  Thus, the responses are code compliant.  If Plaintiff believes Defendant is withholding information, she can clarify this via further written discovery or deposition.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further response to RFA is DENIED.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED as Plaintiff partially succeeded on the motion regarding Special Rogs and the Court does not find the motion regarding RFA to have been brought in bad faith.

Moving party to give notice.