Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles case information records plaintiff is represented by attorney Kenneth Yeager of Drociak and Yeager.

Case Number: 17STLC01513 Hearing Date: May 15, 2018 Dept: 94

Defendant’s motion to compel further response to special interrogatories is GRANTED.

Defendant’s requests for sanction is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $410.00.

Background

This action arises out of a trip and fall on a bus. Plaintiff alleges that on September 17, 2015, she tripped when entering a bus operated by Defendant. On September 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for general negligence

Legal Standard

A party may bring a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories once it has deemed the responses to be incomplete or evasive, or an objection is made without merit. (CCP § 2030.300(a).) The burden is on the responding party to justify its objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

The motion must be accompanied by a Section 2016.040 meet and confer declaration and must be noticed within 45 days of service of the response, or supplemental response, unless the parties have agreed in writing to an extension of the 45-day deadline. (CCP §§ 2030.300(b)-(c).) If the motion is not timely filed, the party waives the right to compel further responses to the interrogatories. (Id.) The motion must be accompanied by a separate statement. (CRC Rule 3.1345.)

Additionally, “a meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (CCP §2016.040.)

Timeliness

Defendant filed and served the instant motion on April 2, 2018. Plaintiff served responses on February 8, 2018 by mail. (Decl. Walker, Ex. C.) As such, the 45-day deadline of CCP § 2020.300(c) is extended by 5 calendar days. (CCP § 1013(a).) This moved the deadline to file the instant motion to Friday, March 30, 2018. March 30, 2018 was a court holiday, moving the deadline to Monday, April 2, 2018. As such, Defendant’s motion is timely.

Meet and Confer and Separate Statement

Defendant has included a meet and confer declaration and separate statement. (Decl. Walker ¶ 7, Ex. D.)

Discussion

Defendant seeks an order compelling further response to special interrogatory no.1. Defendant propounded special interrogatories (set one) on December 11, 2017. (Decl. Walker ¶ 2.) Responses were due on January 15, 2018. (Id. ¶ 3.) On January 26, 2018, Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff advising Plaintiff to serve responses, without objection, by February 1, 2018. (Id. ¶ 5, Ex. B.) On February 8, 2018, Plaintiff served an objection to special interrogatory no. 1. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff waived the right to object because the response was untimely.

Special interrogatory no. 1 requests Plaintiff list, with specificity, “all doctors, hospitals, clinics, physicians, nursing organizations, chiropractors, out-patient services or other health care organizations or individuals whom have examined or treated you for any reason from January 1, 2005 to present.” (Separate Statement p.2.) In response, Plaintiff objected on the grounds that the interrogatory is vague, overbroad, harassing, and irrelevant. Plaintiff also objected on the grounds that it creates an undue burden on Plaintiff and constitutes an invasion of privacy. (Ibid.)

A responding party waives objections to interrogatories if the responses are untimely. (CCP § 2030.290(a).) The court may relieve the responding party from waiver if, on motion, the court finds that the responding party has “subsequently served a response that is substantially complaint” with the CCP and that the “failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP § 2030.290(a)(1)-(2).)

Here, Plaintiff served responses to special interrogatories approximately one week late. (Decl. Walker ¶¶ 5-6, Exs. B, C.) As such, Plaintiff waived the right to object.

Plaintiff has not opposed this motion and has thus not justified the objections. (Fairmont, supra 22 Cal.4th at 255.) In addition, Plaintiff has not filed a motion for relief of waiver.

Accordingly, Plaintiff must provide a further response to special interrogatory no. 1 without objection.

Defendant’s motion to compel further response to special interrogatories is GRANTED.

Sanctions

Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $585.00. Defendant’s counsel asserts that three (3) hours were spent on drafting the motion, anticipated review of opposition and drafting a reply and attending the hearing. (Decl. Walker ¶ 9.) Walker bills at a rate of $175 per hour. (Ibid.) The filing fee for the motion was $60.

Defendant’s requests for sanction is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $410.00, as Plaintiff has not opposed this motion.

Conclusion

Defendant’s motion to compel further response to special interrogatories is GRANTED.

Defendant’s requests for sanction is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $410.00.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve a further verified response, without objection, to special interrogatory no. 1 within 30 days of notice of ruling.

Defendant to give notice.