Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 22-1265029, Date: 2023-07-27 Tentative Ruling

RECOMMENDED RULING:

Defendant Triple A Pumping & Jetting Services’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Set One is GRANTED in part. 

While meet and confer efforts were sparse, in light of the fact that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond to either meet and confer letter for the motions on calendar today, efforts were sufficient.

As noted by Plaintiff, neither motion to compel complies with CRC 3.1345(d), as the motion does not identify the interrogatories or requests by set and number.  It is unclear from the motion to which interrogatories Defendant seeks to compel further responses. 

However, it is clear Plaintiff’s responses to several of the special interrogatories are insufficient. 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).) Further, “[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.)

As to No 1, which requests facts to support Plaintiff’s contentions as to her employment, Plaintiff provided a sufficient response and asserts there are currently no other facts pertaining to the request. As to No 3 the separate statement appears to muddle together the response to No 3 with the interrogatory and reasoning for No. 6.  As such, it is unclear which Defendant is actually seeking to compel. The motion to compel further responses is DENIED as to these two interrogatories.

As to Nos. 9, 18, 21, 32, 41, 44, 50, 53, 57, 59, 62, 65, and 73, Plaintiff is asked to identify documents that support her claims.  Plaintiff’s responses to each of these are either “Text Messages” or “Text Messages and Work Status Report”.  Even though Defendant failed to capitalize the terms “IDENTIFY” and “DOCUMENTS” as required under CCP § 2030.060, the meaning of the questions are clear, and Plaintiff’s answers are not as complete and straightforward as information reasonably available to her would permit.  There is no identification as to the author, recipient, or approximate dates of any text messages relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.  As such, the motion is GRANTED as to these items.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is MOOT.

As to the Requests for Production, Plaintiff asserts that further production was served on June 26, 2023, making this motion now MOOT.

In light of the procedural defects of the motion and the interrogatories, as well as Defendant’s failure to address any allegations of bad faith, sanctions are not warranted.

Moving party to give notice.