Case Number: BC694381 Hearing Date: August 22, 2018 Dept: 61

Plaintiff Brian Davidian’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One — General, from Defendant AmWINS Insurance Broker of California, LLC is GRANTED as to Interrogatories No. 4.1, 4.2, 8.1, 8.7, 8.8, 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 14.1, and 16.6, and will be granted as to No. 17.1 if supplemental responses are not provided before hearing on this motion.

Plaintiff Brian Davidian’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One — Employment from Defendant AmWINS Insurance Broker of California, LLC is GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 209.2.

Plaintiff is awarded sanctions in the amount of $3,120.

Plaintiff to provide notice.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER – INTERROGATORIES

Davidian asks this court to compel further responses to General Interrogatories Nos. 4.1, 4.2, 7.1, 8.7, 8.8, 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.6, 12.7, 14.1, 16.6, 17.1. (Motion at p. ii.)

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010, subd. (a).) A propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the party believes the answers are incomplete, evasive, or the objections are without merit. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

The party filing a motion must submit a meet-and-confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (b).).

As an initial matter, the court finds that the parties have adequately met and conferred.

AmWINS argues, in relation to the General Interrogatories at issue in this case, that the proffered definition of “incident” is too broad and indeterminate to provide a basis for response. (Opposition at p. 2.) AmWINS relies on the multiple causes of action asserted in the SAC, and argues that no single definition of “incident” can cover them all. (Opposition at pp. 2–3.)

The court does not regard this case as so complex that the standard judicial council definition of “incident” is inadequate to provide a basis for discovery. Despite the multiple legal theories upon which Davidian pursues his claims, the underlying incidents are readily discernable as (1) the failure to pay fair market value for Davidian’s purchased shares, and (2) the failure make payments incidental to employment, such as accrued vacation or commissions. Davidian’s fraud claims derive from the first matter, as do his breach of fiduciary duty claims. Because the nature of the information sought is reasonably apparent, the court does not regard a more specific definition of “incident” as necessary.

Davidian also moves to compel further responses to General Interrogatory 17.1, on the grounds that AmWINS has failed to provide responses for Requests for Admission No. 26–27, 38, 40–42, and 57–60. (Motion at p. 9.) AmWINS does not defend its objections to any of these requests but argues that supplemental responses have been provided or will be provided before hearing on this motion. (Opposition at pp. 3–4.) If supplemental responses are not provided, this court will GRANT the motion as to Interrogatory 17.1.

AmWINS also objects to Employment Interrogatory 209.2 on the grounds that information regarding previous employment actions is irrelevant and already publicly available. (Opposition at pp. 3–4.) Davidian argues that information regarding AmWINS prior violations of Labor Law may be relevant to show whether such violations were “willful,” and whether other employees have been similarly aggrieved. (Motion at pp. 4–5.)

“[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)

Given the broad scope of discovery embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure, the court finds the interrogatory reasonably directed toward locating witnesses of other similar practices, who may in turn provide information relevant to this litigation. The fact that information regarding civil litigation is public record would appear to be an argument against allowing the Judicial Council to promulgate the interrogatory. In any event, this public information is far more readily available to AmWINS, who was party to the actions in question, than to Davidian who must sift through court records. The information is thus not “equally available.” (See Pantzalas v. Superior Court (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 499, 503 [“Where the information sought is equally available to the propounder of the interrogatory, the burden and expense of any research which may be required should be borne by the party seeking the information.”].)

The Motion to Compel Further is GRANTED as to Employment Interrogatory No. 209.2

SANCTIONS

Statute provides that the court shall impose sanctions upon a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or requests for admission, absent substantial justification otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300, subd. (d); 2031.310, subd. (h); 2033.290, subd. (d).)

The court GRANTS sanctions in the amount of $3,120 (four hours for each motion at $375 an hour, as well as two $60 filing fees) in favor of moving party as against AmWINS.