Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 21-1225303, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff, Henry Tung Trinh Le’s (“Le”) Motion to Compel Defendant Tan Huu Huynh (“Huynh”) to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (“Form Rogs”), Set One, Nos. 15.1 and 17.1 is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a).)
Le’s Motion to Compel Huynh to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production (“RFP”), Set One is DENIED as to RFP No. 11 and GRANTED as to RFP Nos. 13, 14 and 15. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).)
Further responses in accordance with this ruling are to be provided within 10 days.
Request for Production
The Court finds that Le has set forth good cause justifying the discovery sought by the RFP at issue as the requests seek documents that are relevant to the claims and defenses in this litigation.
Huynh’ s response to RFP No. 11 is code compliant. The response indicates that he is unable to comply, affirms that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply, and explains the basis for the inability to comply. Thus, the response to RFP No. 11 complies with Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.210(a) and 2031.230 and no further response is needed.
Huynh’s responses to RFP Nos. 13-15 are evasive and nonresponsive. Although RFP 13-15 are misnumbered (they are all numbered No. 12), it is clear from a reading of the entire RFP that these were meant to be separate requests to which a response should have been provided. (See Ex. 1 to ROA 74.) The RFP at issue are the last three RFP in the set and they follow directly after the first RFP No. 12, to which Huynh did answer. Thus, it is clear that the RFP at issue are separate requests for documents that should have been labeled Nos. 13-15. Huynh’s answer that the misnumbering renders the requests “completely unintelligible” is not well-taken. A further response to these RFP must be provided.
Accordingly, the motion is granted as to RFP Nos. 13-15.
Interrogatories
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).)
“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.)
Huynh failed to provide a substantive response to Form Rog No. 15.1 citing the pending demurrer to Le’s complaint. A demurrer to a complaint does not justify refusal to answer discovery unless a protective order is sought and obtained from the court. “Pleading deficiencies generally do not affect either party's right to conduct discovery … and this right (and corresponding obligation to respond) is particularly important to a plaintiff in need of discovery to amend its complaint.” (Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436 fn 3.) Accordingly, the Court finds Huynh’s response to Form Rog No. 15.1 to be insufficient. A further response to Form Rog No. 15.1 must be provided.
Huynh’s response to Form Rog No. 17.1 is disingenuous as RFA Set One was served on Huynh on November 22, 2021 (see Ex. 5 to ROA 70) and Huynh provided responses to the RFA in which he denied RFAs 1-10 and 12-20 and stated he was unable to admit or deny RFA 11 (see Ex. 6 to ROA 70). The meet and confer correspondence reflects that Huynh’s refusal to respond to Form Rog No. 17.1 stems from the fact that when Le served the RFAs, he failed to include an Exhibit 1 that was referenced in the RFAs. Exhibit 1 to the RFAs was later served on Huynh’s counsel, but apparently there were defects in the proof of service. Although Exhibit 1 was not included in the original RFA, that exhibit was only referenced in three of the RFA (Nos. 9, 10, 11); thus, the omission of that exhibit does not excuse Huynh’s failure to respond to the remainder of the RFAs. Further, Huynh does not dispute that he received a copy of Exhibit 1 to the RFAs.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to Form Rog Nos. 15.1 and 17.1.
Sanctions: Le’s request for sanctions is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(d) [rogs], 2031.310(h) [RFPs].) The Court finds that Le’s meet and confer efforts were inadequate. There is no indication that Le made any attempt to address Huynh’s concerns as stated in Huynh’s letter dated February 9, 2022 regarding the procedural defects in the discovery requests. There is also no indication that Le made any attempt to provide Huynh with the requested legal authority to support Le’s contentions in his meet and confer letter. Had Le properly met and conferred, it is likely that most of the issues raised by these motions could have been resolved.
The Court declines to consider Huynh’s sanction request. Huynh’s sanction request is included with his Opposition filed on 08/18/22, but there is no proof of service attached to the Opposition. No reply brief was filed so the Court is unable to determine whether Le was properly served with the Opposition and sanction request. Further, the Court notes this is not the first time Huynh has failed to include a proof of service with his filings. His demurrer to complaint (ROA 60) and his opposition to Le’s MSJ (ROA 109) also did not contain proofs of service. Thus, the Court declines to impose sanctions against Le. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(d) [rogs], 2031.310(h) [RFPs].)
Counsel for Le to give notice.