Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2021-00053895-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPT.:
EVENT DATE:
EVENT TIME:
HALL OF JUSTICE
TENTATIVE RULINGS - July 19, 2023
07/21/2023 01:30:00 PM C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor
CASE NO.:
CASE CATEGORY:
EVENT TYPE:
CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:
Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2021-00053895-CU-PO-CTL REED VS FUNK [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 05/15/2023
Tentative Ruling on Motion to Compel Discovery Reed v. Funk, Case No. 2021-53895 July 21, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.
This is a straightforward negligence/strict liability case arising from a dog bite incident on New Years Eve, 2019 in Ramona. The complaint was filed at the end of 2021. The case was assigned to Judge Caietti, but she recused. ROA 17. Following reassignment to Dept. 72 and a stipulation eliminating the punitive damages allegations (ROA 22), defendants answered in August of 2022. ROA 23.
Following a false start involving counsel's failure to appear (ROA 33), the court set the case for trial in August of 2023. ROA 41-45.
Presently, defendants seek an order compelling responses to basic form interrogatories, and imposing sanctions on plaintiff and her counsel. ROA 55-60. An earlier iteration of this motion was set for hearing last April (ROA 46-51), but was taken off calendar by the defendants (ROA 53). Plaintiff served – but did not file – an opposition brief just four court days before the hearing date. Defendants replied. ROA 61-63. The court has reviewed the papers that have been filed and no further submissions are permitted in connection with this motion.
2. Applicable Standards.
A. A civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.
'[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.
'Among the myriad purposes of the civil discovery statutes is to safeguard against surprise and gamesmanship, and to prevent delay.' Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 306.
B. Answers to interrogatories must be complete and responsive. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783. After receiving a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move to compel a further response if an answer is evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
2974316 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: REED VS FUNK [IMAGED] 37-2021-00053895-CU-PO-CTL documents under section 2030.230 is unwarranted or not sufficiently specific, or an objection to an interrogatory is meritless or too general. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a). 'While the party propounding interrogatories may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.' Williams, 3 Cal.5th at 541.
C. When the Discovery Act authorizes a monetary sanction, the trial court must impose such a sanction unless the offending party acted with substantial justification or the imposition of the sanction would be unjust. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a). However, in awarding sanctions, 'a trial court has discretion to reduce the amount of fees and costs...in order to reach a reasonable award.' Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.
3. Discussion and Rulings.
The motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is granted in part and denied in part.
A. As an initial matter, the court finds that the motion is timely. Parties are entitled 'as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.020(a). In this case, trial is set for August 18, 2023 and has not been continued. ROA 41-43. Not only is the hearing on this discovery motion more than 15 days before the trial date, it is also before the motion/discovery cutoff set by the court. See ROA 43. Thus, the motion is timely.
B. Turning to the merits, the motion is granted as to form interrogatories 2.5, 2.6, 6.4, 6.7, and 9.1.
Plaintiff's responses are incomplete as they do not address all of the required subparts.
The motion is granted as to form interrogatories 6.2, 6.3, 6.5, and 9.2. Plaintiff's responses do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230. 'A broad statement that the information is available from a mass of documents is insufficient.' Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at 784. Moreover, plaintiff has not shown that the burden or expense of preparing or making a compilation/abstract/ audit/summary would be substantially the same for both parties. Id. Essentially, Nissan appears to be attempting to use a blanket invocation of section 2030.230 to avoid doing the normal work associated with answering interrogatories. Section 2030.230 was not intended to be used for such a purpose.
The motion is denied as to form interrogatory 12.1. A sufficient response has been provided.
Accordingly, plaintiff must serve further verified responses to form interrogatories 2.5, 2.6, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, and 9.2 by August 4, 2023.
C. Defendants' request for monetary sanctions is denied. The court find circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Indeed, the foregoing is somewhat of a mixed bag. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(d).
D. In issuing this ruling, the court has not considered the trial court order cited in the moving papers.
(See Ps&As at 4:8.) 'Trial court decisions are not precedents binding on other courts under the principle of stare decisis.' Harrott v. County of Kings (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1138, 1148.
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
2974316