Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 21-11230092, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Defendant, Oscar Health Plan of California’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian’s (“Plaintiff”) Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (“Special Rogs”) Set One, Nos. 1 and 10 is DENIED.

Given the broad scope of the Special Rogs at issue (they seek all facts supporting Plaintiff’s legal claims and unfair competition claim), the court finds Plaintiff’s response to the at issue Special Rogs to be code compliant.

Defendant complains that seven of the assertions in Plaintiff’s responses are based on information and belief, rather than personal knowledge, and that such response is improper. However, Defendant offers no authority holding that statements on information and belief are specifically prohibited in response to interrogatories. Such a response appears to be appropriate, for example, where the information sought is not in the possession of the party served. This is the case in the present matter. A review of the responses shows that the seven statements made on information and belief all involve actions of and/or the state of mind of Defendant, information that is reasonably within the unique possession of Defendant. Thus, Plaintiff’s reference to “information and belief” for these assertions is appropriate. Further, the court notes that the vast majority of the statements in Plaintiff’s responses are not made on information and belief.

Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, cited by Defendant, requires interrogatory responses to be as “complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and provides that the interrogatory “shall be answered to the extent possible.” Here, Plaintiff has provided a detailed six-page factual response that answers the interrogatories straightforwardly, especially considering the breadth of the requests. Thus, the court finds the responses are not evasive, vague or conclusory as Defendant argues.

Further, verification of the answers is in effect a declaration that the party has disclosed all information which is available to him. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782.) If Defendant is unclear regarding certain aspects of Plaintiff’s responses or believes certain information has been withheld, this can be clarified via a deposition or further written discovery.

Additionally, although Plaintiff asserted various objections to the interrogatories, it provided a code compliant response despite the objections. Thus, the court need not reach Defendant’s arguments related to the merits of the objections.

Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.