On 14 March 2014, the motion of Plaintiff Virginia Stombaugh (“Plaintiff”) to compel further responses to Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFA”), Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FI”), and Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SI”), and for monetary sanctions was argued and submitted. Defendant Cynthia Joehnck, erroneously sued as Cynthia Joelnich, filed a formal opposition to the motion and requested monetary sanctions.

Statement of Facts

This is a personal injury action involving a dangerous condition of property. Plaintiff, a residential tenant of defendants Cynthia Joehnck and Cal-Western Property Management (collectively “Defendants”), alleges that she tripped on a nail that was protruding from the top of a deck at Defendants’ rental property. She contends that Defendants owed her a duty to maintain the property in a safe condition and their failure to do so caused her to suffer serious injuries. In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges three causes of action against Defendants for negligence, premises liability, and breach of the implied warranty of habitability.

Discovery Dispute

On 21 November 2013, Plaintiff served the RFA, FI, and SI on Cynthia Joehnck (“Defendant”). On 18 December 2013, Defendant served her responses to the discovery requests.

Plaintiff found Defendant’s responses to be deficient, and Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendant’s counsel on 16 January 2014 to commence meet and confer discussions. On 23 January 2014, Defendant’s counsel indicated that further responses were not warranted. Consequently, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further responses to the FI, SI, and RFA on 31 January 2014. Defendant filed her opposition on 19 February 2014. On 7 March 2014, Plaintiff filed her reply.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to the RFA Nos. 1 and 17-18, FI Nos. 2.1-2.2, 2.5-2.7, and 17.1, and SI Nos. 42 and 47. She contends that the objections interposed are without merit and the substantive responses are incomplete. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions against Defendant. In opposition, Defendant contends that the objections are meritorious and the substantive responses are adequate. Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.

I. Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFA Nos. 1, 17 & 18

If a party demanding a response to a request for admission deems an answer to a particular request for admission as incomplete, or an objection in the response to be without merit or too general, that party may move for an order compelling further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290.) The party objecting to a discovery request bears the burden of explaining and justifying objections. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

1. RFA No. 1

RFA No. 1 asks Defendant to admit that she owns, manages and maintains the subject premises. Defendant objected on the ground that the request is compound.

Plaintiff contends Defendant is obligated to respond to at least part of the request. In opposition, Defendant reiterates that the request is compound.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.060, subdivision (f), provides “[n]o request for admission shall contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive request.” This rule is primarily intended to prevent evasion of the statutory limit on the number of requests that one party may propound to another by structuring questions so as to require more information than could be obtained by a limited number of separate questions. (See Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1287-1289, 1291 [interpreting a similar statutory provision regarding special interrogatories].) Thus, while the use of subparts will be tolerated to the extent that each discovery request embraces only a single subject, discovery requests that embrace two discrete matters are by and large impermissible. (Id. at p. 1291.)

The request at issue concerns the same subject matter. The right to control, manage, and maintain a piece of property all constitute some of the incidents of ownership. (See Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, 1176.) Therefore, as the request embraces only one subject, the request is not compound and the objection is overruled. Defendant could call it a response as to whether it controlled and/or managed and/or maintained the property in question. Thus, a further response is warranted.

2. RFA No. 17

RFA No. 17 asks Defendant to admit that Plaintiff was injured as result of the “INCIDENT.” “INCIDENT” is defined as “the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other occurrence(s), or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding.” Defendant responded, “This request cannot be admitted or denied at this time. Additionally, it is objected to on the grounds that the utilization of the term ‘incident,’ which includes personal injuries and breaches of contract as per its definition in the requests, renders this request both compound and ambiguous.”

Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to identify the part of the request to which she lacked sufficient information to respond. In addition, Plaintiff argues that the objection to the use of the term “INCIDENT” is without merit because it is identical to the definition provided in the FI, to which Defendant did not object. In opposition, Defendant argues that, at the time of her response to the RFA, Defendant had not yet deposed Plaintiff or reviewed her medical records, and thus, did not know if Plaintiff was injured.

An answer to a request for admission must: (1) admit so much of the matter as is true; (2) deny so much of the matter as is untrue; and (3) specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (b).) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party “shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable the party to admit the matter.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (c).)

In her opposition to the motion, Defendant suggests that she lacked sufficient information at the time of the response to provide an answer because she had not yet deposed Plaintiff or reviewed her medical records. Nevertheless, Defendant failed to state in her answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter had been made and that the information known or readily obtainable was insufficient to enable her to admit the matter. Thus, her response is not code-compliant.

While Defendant asserted additional objections to the RPD at issue, she defends only those discussed above in her opposition papers. Consequently, her remaining objections are overruled.

In addition, Defendant’s objections lack merit. A vague and ambiguous objection to a discovery request generally will not be sustained unless the request is unintelligible. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783).The term “INCIDENT” is precisely defined. The definition otherwise does not render the RFA compound. The RFA merely seeks a statement concerning Defendant’s awareness that Plaintiff was injured in any manner as a result of the fall. Accordingly, a further response is warranted.

3. RFA No. 18

RFA No. 18 asks Defendant to admit that she was aware of previous incidents where a tenant of the premises suffered injuries. Defendant objected on the ground that the request is overbroad as to time and ambiguous with respect to the term “previous incidents”.

Plaintiff contends that even if the request is somewhat ambiguous, as the nature of the information sought is apparent, Defendant should be required to provide a substantive response. Defendant argues that the request seeks information not relevant to the action, the request is unlimited as to time, and the information would be more readily available to Plaintiff than to her.

“In short, as Justice Murphy said for the court in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 [91 L.Ed. 451, 460, 67 S.Ct. 385], ‘discovery, like all matters of procedure, has ultimate and necessary boundaries.’” Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 19.)

“[S]ome burden is inherent in all demands for discovery.” (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 418.) A party claiming that requested discovery is unduly burdensome must make a particularized showing of facts demonstrating hardship. (Id. at pp. 417-18.)

Defendant has not met its burden to demonstrate that the request is overbroad as to time. Defendant suggests the request should be limited to the time Plaintiff lived at the property, but does not articulate how or why that should be the case. Furthermore, the RFA simply asks Defendant to either admit or deny that she was aware of prior incidents where a tenant of the premises suffered injury. Therefore, her objection is overruled.

Defendant next contends that the RFA seeks information not relevant to the action and the information would be more readily available to Plaintiff than to her. Defendant did not make these objections in her response to the RFA. An objection must be provided in an original response to written interrogatories to avoid waiver. (See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 273.) Therefore, these objections are waived.

Finally, the only objections Defendant attempted to defend in her opposition are those discussed above. Consequently, her remaining objections are overruled. Accordingly, a further response is required.

4. Conclusion

The motion to compel further responses to RFA Nos. 1, 17 and 18 is GRANTED.

II. Motion to Compel Further Responses to FI & SI

A party propounding interrogatories may move for an order compelling further responses if that party deems an answer is evasive or incomplete and/or an objection is without merit or too general. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) The statute does not require any showing of good cause in support of a motion. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300; see also Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.) The burden is on the responding party to justify any objections or failure to fully answer. (See Coy v. Superior Court, supra, 58 Cal.2d at pp. 220-221.)

1. FI Nos. 2.1-2.2 & 2.5-2.6

FI No. 2.1 asks Defendant to provide her name, any names used in the past, and the dates she used each name. Defendant responded by stating her name. FI No. 2.2 asks Defendant to state her date of birth and place of birth. Defendant responded by stating only her date of birth. FI No. 2.5 asks Defendant to state her present residential address, her addresses for the past five years, and the dates she lived at each address. Defendant responded by stating her present address. FI No. 2.6 asks Defendant to state the identifying information of her present employer and any employers she had over the last five years before the incident until the present date. Defendant responded, “Retired.”

Plaintiff contends that Defendant has not provided full and complete answers to each of the interrogatories, including all subparts. In response, Defendant argues that the responses are intended to apply to each applicable subpart. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, subdivision (a), “[e]ach answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” Defendant’s responses are not complete because Defendant did not answer all subparts. Accordingly, further responses are warranted.

2. FI No. 2.7

FI No. 2.7 asks Defendant to state the name and address of each school she has attended beginning with high school, the dates of attendance, the highest grade completed, and the degrees received. Defendant responded, “Not applicable.”

Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s knowledge, education and sophistication are relevant. In opposition, Defendant argues that her level of education is irrelevant to a trip-and-fall case.

For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (See Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611.) Thus, the scope of permissible discovery is one of reason, logic and common sense. (Id. at p. 1612.) Here, Defendant’s education level is relevant to her knowledge, experience and credibility. Therefore, this information might reasonably assist Plaintiff at trial. Accordingly, a further response is justified.

3. FI No. 17.1

FI No. 17.1 asks Defendant the following, “Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the number of the request; (b) state all facts upon which you base your response; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.”

Defendant responded only with respect to RFA No. 1. She stated that the interrogatory could not be answered because the form of the request is compound, she does not manage the property, Defendants have knowledge of these facts, and the management agreement between Defendants supports her response.

Plaintiff contends the response with respect to RFA No. 1 is incomplete because Defendant did not mention whether she owned or maintained the property. Plaintiff also contends that the response is incomplete because Defendant provided no response concerning RFA Nos. 17 and 18. In opposition, Defendant argues that the interrogatory has been completely answered and the appropriate responses to FI No. 17.1 were contained in RFA Nos. 17 and 18.

With regard to RFA No. 1, Defendant has not stated all facts upon which she bases her response to RFA No. 1. She does not state any facts indicating why she can not admit or deny that she owns, manages and maintains the premises at issue. Therefore, Defendant must provide a full and complete response to FI No. 17.1 in connection with RFA No. 1.

With regard to RFA Nos. 17 and 18, Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.210, subdivision (b) states that each “response” to a RFA shall answer the substance of the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request. In turn, FI No. 17.1 asks whether the party’s “response” to each RFA was an unqualified admission and, if not, to provide further detail. As an objection is not considered an unqualified admission, a party objecting to a RFA is obligated to provide further detail in response to FI No. 17.1. While Defendant objected to RFA Nos. 17 and 18, she has failed to address these two RFA in FI No. 17.1. Therefore, a further response to FI No. 17.1 in connection with RFA Nos. 17 and 18 is warranted.

4. SI Nos. 42 & 47

SI No. 42 asks Defendant to identify any and all repairs performed at the rented premises over the last ten years. Defendant objected to the interrogatory on the ground that SI No. 42 is grossly overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. SI No. 47 asks Defendant whether she received any complaints from tenants relating to the living conditions at the leased premises. Defendant objected on the ground that the interrogatory is irrelevant.

Plaintiff contends that the interrogatories seek information concerning whether Defendant systematically and continuously failed to make repairs to the premises. She argues that such information may lead to evidence in support her cause of action for the breach of the warranty of habitability. In opposition, Defendant contends that any repairs to the premises had no relation to the deck upon which Plaintiff tripped, the number of interrogatories propounded exceeds the limit provided in Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.040, and the information in response to the interrogatory is equally available to Plaintiff.

As noted above, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objections or failure to fully answer. (See Coy v. Superior Court., supra, 58 Cal.2d at pp. 220-221.) Defendant fails to meet this burden. First, the interrogatories sought are reasonably calculated to assist Plaintiff in preparing for trial. Information concerning repairs performed over the last ten years and complaints from tenants could have some tendency to show that the rented premises was in such a poor condition that it was uninhabitable. Second, Plaintiff alleges in her third cause of action that the breach of the warranty of habitability concerns the entire property and does not limit the claim to the issues concerning the deck. Therefore, other repairs to the property may have some bearing on Plaintiff’s action. Finally, with respect to Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiff violated Code of Civil Procedure, section 2020.040 and the information in response to the interrogatory is equally available to Plaintiff, Defendant did not make these objections in her responses to the SI. An objection must be provided in an original response to written interrogatories to avoid waiver. (See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 273.) Therefore, these objections are waived.

Based on the foregoing, the objections are overruled and further responses to SI Nos. 42 and 47 are warranted.

5. Conclusion

The motion to compel further responses to FI Nos. 2.1-2.2, 2.5-2.7, and 17.1 and SI Nos. 42 and 47 is GRANTED.

III. Monetary Sanctions

A. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions
B.
Plaintiff makes a code-compliant request for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $2,330 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 et seq. and 2033.280, et seq. The Court shall impose a monetary sanction against any person who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to an interrogatory or a request for admission, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d); Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Defendant was not substantially justified in opposing the motion to compel. No other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions against Defendant.

Plaintiff’s counsel, Patricia Boyes, avers that she spent 3 hours preparing this motion at a billing rate of $320 per hour ($960). She requests an additional $1,280 for her anticipated reply and court appearance. The Court does not award sanctions for expenses not yet incurred. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a); Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1551.) Consequently, the anticipated attorney fees are not compensable. The hourly rate and hours spent are otherwise reasonable. Finally, Plaintiff seeks the $60 filing fee and the $30 court reporter fee. These costs constitute reasonable expenses and Plaintiff is entitled to recover them. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART in the amount of $1,050.

C. Defendant’s Request for Sanctions
D.
Defendant requests a total of $577.50 for opposing Plaintiff’s motion. As noted above, the Court shall impose a monetary sanction against any person who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to an interrogatory or a request for admission, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d); Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Here, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the RFA, FI, and SI was successful. Therefore, Defendant’s request for an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff is DENIED.

Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the RFA, FI, and SI is GRANTED. Accordingly, within 20 calendar days of the date of the filing of this Order, Defendant shall serve verified code-compliant further responses to RFA Nos. 1, 17, and 18, FI Nos. 2.1-2.2, 2.5-2.7, and 17.1, and SI Nos. 42 and 47, without objection.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant is GRANTED IN PART in the amount of $1,050. Accordingly, within 20 calendar days of the date of the filing of this Order, Defendant shall pay $1,050 to Plaintiff’s counsel.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff is DENIED.