Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV20462, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20462    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On October 17, 2022, Plaintiff Cassandra Cisneros (“Plaintiff”) filed this motion for an order compelling defendant Hanna Song (“Defendant”) to produce further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two) (“FROG”) Nos. 13.1, 13.2, and 17.1, and Special Interrogatories (Set One) No. 32, within 10 days of the hearing of this motion.  The parties attended an IDC on September 19, 2022, and Defendant served supplemental responses to Requests for Admission, (which are not at issue in this motion) on September 26, 2022.  These responses were misnumbered and required Defendant to serve another set of supplemental responses on October 18, 2022, to correct the numbering issue.

Here, FROG Nos. 13.1 and 13.2 ask whether any surveillance has been conducted and whether any written report on the surveillance has been prepared.  Similarly, SROG No. 32 asks Defendant to identify the persons who conducted surveillance in this case on her behalf.  Defendant argues that the information requested by these interrogatories is protected by the work product doctrine.  The Court agrees.  Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling a further response to FROG No. 13.1, 13.2, and SROG No. 32 is DENIED. 

Next, Plaintiff takes issue with Defendant’s response to FROG No. 17.1, specifically in connection with Request for Admission (“RFA”) Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.  The Court notes that on October 18, 2022, Defendant served further responses admitting RFA Nos. 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, obviating the necessity of a response to FROG No. 17.1 for those RFAs, and leaving only RFA Nos. 1, 2, and 3.  RFA Nos. 1, 2, and 3 ask Defendant to admit that on the date of the car accident: (1) she was “travelling above the legal speed limit”, (2) she “failed to drive carefully”, and (3) she “failed to make proper use of her vehicle’s controls”.  (Motion, Ex. 3.)  Defendant objects to providing any facts underlying her denials of those RFAs on the grounds that certain phrases such as “legal speed limit”, “carefully”, and “INCIDENT” are vague and ambiguous, and that the RFAs call for the premature disclosure of expert opinions and legal conclusions.  These objections are well-taken. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling a further response to FROG No. 17.1 is DENIED.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.  Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $2,200, consisting of 4 hours at defense counsel’s services at $550 per hour, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.