Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 22STCV05622, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05622    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: 31

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

TO FORM INTERROGATORIES IS GRANTED 

Background 

On February 15, 2022, Plaintiff pro se Bijan Yaghoobia filed a Complaint against Defendant Valaria Cruz and Does 1 to 100 for: 

1)     Waste;

2)     Treble Damages;

3)     Temporary Restraining Order;

4)     Preliminary Injunction; and

5)     Permanent Injunction. 

On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff moved for a Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Form Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff also filed a Separate Statement in support of the motion. 

No opposition has been filed. 

Legal Standard 

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 (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete, (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections thereto. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21.) 

Moreover, notice of a motion to compel further must be given 45 days of service of the response or any supplemental response, or on or before any specific later day to which the propounding party and responding party may have agreed in writing. (CCP § 2030.300(c).) Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule (CRC) 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).¿

Discussion 

Plaintiff asserts that on July 28, 2022, Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant Valeria Cruz. (Yaghoobia Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) 

On or about September 28, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with a response which was an objection to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories, Set One. (Id., Ex. E.) Plaintiff asserts that the responses were non-responsive. Moreover, since Defendant failed to timely respond to the Form Interrogatories, Defendant waived any objections. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290 subd. (a).) 

On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant explaining why Defendant’s responses were non-responsive and requesting that Defendant respond no later than Tuesday, October 18, 2022. (Yaghoobia Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. H.) No response was received by the stated deadline. 

Defendant responded to the majority of the Form Interrogatories with a boilerplate objections as follows:   

“The interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of the action, nor is it calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See Separate Statement) 

“Objection The request as framed is vague, ambagious, and unintelligible.” (Id.) 

The Court agrees Defendant has waived any objections, including ones based on privilege or on the work product doctrine due to Defendant’s failure to timely serve responses to the Form Interrogatories. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290 subd. (a).) 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. 

Conclusion 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One Nos. 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6. 2.7, 2.8, 2.11, 2.12., 2.13,4.1,6.1,62,9.1,92, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 124, 125, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 14,1, 14.2, 15,1, 16.1, 16.2,16.3, 16.8.,16.9., 16.10, 17.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, and 50.6 is GRANTED. Code-compliant, verified responses due in 30 days. 

Moving party to give notice.