Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 21-1204719, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories filed by Defendants Phi M. Nguyen and Thy Nguyen (“Defendants”) on 3/29/23 is GRANTED.

Responses in accordance with this ruling are to be provided within 30 days.

Prior to filing a motion to compel, the moving party must meet and confer with the responding party in a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve each issue that would be presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b), 2031.310(b), and 2033.290(b).)  Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040 requires a good faith attempt to resolve “each issue presented by the motion.” There must be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App. 4th 1277, 1294.)

Here, Defendants sent a comprehensive meet and confer letter to Plaintiff on March 14, 2023, after receiving Plaintiff’s original responses.  The letter outlines each of the alleged deficiencies and requests verified responses no later than March 22, 2023. It is undisputed that Plaintiff did not respond to that letter, and thus meet and confer efforts were sufficient.

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).) For moving to compel further responses (in relevant part): Per Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.300:

“(a) 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.”

“For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement ....” (Gonzalez v. Superior Ct. (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 1539, 1546.) While Plaintiff has served further responses to most of the special interrogatories at the heart of this motion, he has failed to provide further responses to Nos. 13 and 14. Those two interrogatories ask Plaintiff to identify materials he delivered to the property and anyone else he observed delivering materials for roofing repairs on the subject property. Defendants have shown good cause for this discovery, noting that these interrogatories are relevant to the question of who controlled and directed the work being done at the worksite when Plaintiff fell. Plaintiff’s opposition does not address these, and only asserts further responses have rendered the motion moot. As such, the motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) Nos 13 and 14 is GRANTED.

Further, Plaintiff does not address Defendants’ argument that they are owed a proper verification for the original responses to the special interrogatories.  Per the responses attached to Defendants’ motion as exhibit B of the Saldana declaration, Plaintiff’s verification is dated October 13, 2021, however the discovery was not propounded until December 22, 2022, over a year later. As such, Plaintiff’s original responses are deficient as they are not properly verified.

As such the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED

.

Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff and his attorney of record in the amount of $1,176, payable to Defendants through their attorney of record within 30 days.

Moving party to give notice