CIV527902 JOHN E. FERRY VS. LAURA J. WONS

JOHN E. FERRY LAURA J. WONS
PRO/PER PRO/PER

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT LAURA J. WONS TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET FOUR, WITH PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR AN ORDER THAT A MONETARY SANCTION BE IMPOSED AGAINST DEFENDANT LAURA J. WONS TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories 2.6, 8.3, 8.4, and 12.1 (Set Four) is DENIED in its entirety.

A. Interrogatories 2.6, 8.4, and 12.1 Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One, several years ago, and they included interrogatories 2.6, 8.4, and 12.1 Defendant served responses, but Plaintiff deemed them deficient. Plaintiff moved to compel further responses, but the Court denied the motion as untimely. The present motion to compel further responses is denied because Plaintiff re-propounded the same interrogatories in Set Four. Plaintiff may not avoid the denial of his previous motion by simply re-propounding the same interrogatories.

B. Interrogatory 8.3. Interrogatory 8.3 asks, “State the last date before the INCIDENT that you worked for compensation.” The motion is denied because the interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of this action. Defendant’s objection on grounds of relevance is sustained.

The Court ordered that Plaintiff must prevail on his first and second causes of action to vacate the judgment in Case No. CIV 490434 before he may litigate the third through sixth causes of action. Until that time, the third through sixth causes of action are stayed. The dates when Defendant worked for compensation have nothing to do with the first or second causes of action, which allege that Plaintiff was deceived into not appearing at trial in the previous action. Even under the broad relevance standard for discovery, the dates of Defendant’s working for compensation are not related to the subject matter of whether Plaintiff should be able to vacate the previous judgment.

August 20, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 16 Judge: HONORABLE RICHARD H. DUBOIS, Department 16 ________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff argues that he “will prevail” on the second cause of action, so the issue of Defendant’s income/compensation is relevant to his ability to collect a judgment after his future victory. The argument fails because it relates to the merits of the third through sixth causes of action, which are stayed.

Additionally, Interrogatory 8.3 is part of a series of interrogatories relating to “Loss of Income or Earning Capacity.” (See Judicial Council Form Interrogatories, Form DISC-001, Interrogatory 8.0.) Neither the first nor second cause of action concerns any loss of income or earning capacity of Defendant. Interrogatory 8.3 is not relevant to the subject matter of the first or second causes of action.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties. Prevailing party shall provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.